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

rossco7
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 May 2018, 05:14
Australia

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

Post by rossco7 »

as to the difference in the tonnage figures & i will stand corrected what i have read about the tonnage figures is that the australian navy quoted the weight in metric tonnage while other figures are short & long tonnes which was either us or uk measurements cheers

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

rossco7 wrote:australian navy quoted the weight in metric tonnage while other figures are short & long tonnes which was either us or uk measurements
When we went metric, I thought it was only "the pints" that were saved (re-legalised)?

I hope that the discussion will end up showing that we have ended up with a ship that will not immediately breach buoyancy reserve rules when more kit will get loaded onto it (like what happened with T23s and was a matter of splitting decimals as for it not happening with Burke IIIs).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Oh I suspect the quoted figures are service politics. The RN got into a size/weight and cost debate around type26 when the budget exploded and so quoting the smallest value possible suits the agenda. The Australian probably don’t care so much.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:approx twice displacement of a T23.
An interesting angle, but the G. Brown like for like, at low cost replacement story line/ cover died a long time ago, so as such there is no reason why the nxt-gen shouldn't be bigger. But how much bigger...?

I would rather ask the folks here who, like me, have put forward theories about factors mainly driving the size growth to provide an update.
- I will then copy-paste what I have been saying for as long as this forum has been running (for longer, in fact) and we can see if we now, much later, have or can come to an agreement
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:approx twice displacement of a T23.
An interesting angle, but the G. Brown like for like, at low cost replacement story line/ cover died a long time ago, so as such there is no reason why the nxt-gen shouldn't be bigger. But how much bigger...?

I would rather ask the folks here who, like me, have put forward theories about factors mainly driving the size growth to provide an update.
- I will then copy-paste what I have been saying for as long as this forum has been running (for longer, in fact) and we can see if we now, much later, have or can come to an agreement
Would note the new Spanish Navantia F-110 Bonifaz class frigates which has very similar spec to T26, excluding Special Ops requirement, near carbon copy of the T26 HED propulsion system, same Thales VDS and TAS, Oto Melara 127mm main gun and the much better SPY-7 radar, but only 16 Mk41 VLS cells not 24, quoted at 145m and 6,100t so think would be good baseline displacement for new gen T23.

My take is that the T26 larger displacement was driven by the new GCS KURS for the SF Operations requirement, to act as an amphibious operations platform for special forces with its mission bay sized for 4 x 12 metre boats for the insertion of RM/SAS troops and a flight deck big enough to take a CH47 Chinook (ramp down) for troop embarkation, 100' + length? and with the necessary strength/weight plus the US Mk45 5" gun with its 13nm range and its expensive and assuming space consuming automated magazine which saves 3/4 crew, if specified a high number 5" rounds gor NGFS they could weigh as much as the gun, giving marginal additional firepower support over the old 4.5" Mk8 Mod 1 gun plus the hotel space, magazines etc upsized for ~50 troops.

As mentioned previously why think Hunter maximises out the T26 displacement of 9,700t, if correct, is its new and top heavy CEAFAR2 radar (the new larger AESA GaN SPY-6 radar for Burke Flight III required 5 times the power and 10 times its cooling capacity (uses five 300t a/c units!), compared to the previous gen Burke Flight IIA SPY-1 radar).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Has there ever been a topic on here where everyone has come to an agreement?

I did think part of the reason for the size of the T-26 was to allow for growth throughout its service life though.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Has there ever been a topic on here where everyone has come to an agreement?

I did think part of the reason for the size of the T-26 was to allow for growth throughout its service life though.
Ignore him, he's just spouting a bunch of nonsense.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:the T26 larger displacement was driven by the new GCS KURS for the SF Operations requirement, to act as an amphibious operations platform for special forces with its mission bay sized for 4 x 12 metre boats for the insertion of RM/SAS troops and a flight deck big enough to take a CH47 Chinook (ramp down) for troop embarkation, 100' + length? and with the necessary strength/weight plus the US Mk45 5" gun with its 13nm range and its expensive and assuming space consuming automated magazine which saves 3/4 crew, if specified a high number 5" rounds gor NGFS they could weigh as much as the gun, giving marginal additional firepower support over the old 4.5" Mk8 Mod 1 gun plus the hotel space, magazines etc upsized for ~50 troops.
A great argument for the "global cruiser" angle, more generally the best of 'both worlds' as a hedge against a cut in numbers, inevitably brought about (at the design time that was still the future) by the carriers - which themselves were stemming from a change of doctrine.
- thank you!
NickC wrote:why think Hunter maximises out the T26 displacement of 9,700t, if correct, is its new and top heavy CEAFAR2 radar (the new larger AESA GaN SPY-6 radar for Burke Flight III required 5 times the power and 10 times its cooling capacity
+
Lord Jim wrote:I did think part of the reason for the size of the T-26 was to allow for growth throughout its service life though.
... like (as I thought, on my part) an air-defence radar. The use of words ' max out' in the preceding quote makes me a bit - only a bit, mind you - worried.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote:Has there ever been a topic on here where everyone has come to an agreement?

I did think part of the reason for the size of the T-26 was to allow for growth throughout its service life though.
A service life allowance is designed in for the increase in displacement of ships as they inevitably get heavier as they get older and become less stable as new equipment and systems are added above the centre of gravity. Don't know RN standard but for USN surface combatants allowance was 10% for weight and 12" vertical centre of gravity from when new full load displacement to end of life.

The higher the weight added the more adversely it effect ship's stability until you need to add ballast, lead or pig iron, reducing the weight remaining for new kit to be added.

When ships new or as necessary thereafter shipyards carry out an inclining test on a calm day to calculate the ship’s weight and center of gravity. Identifying current ship weight loads by checking tank levels in every space on the ship, storerooms, weapons magazines, list control tanks, personnel to remain stationary. Take baseline readings of the draft markers located on bow, midships, and stern and then add inclining weights moved into various positions on ship and record new readings with precision inclinometers. The end result data set from the incline test and the sally test will validate the damage control stability characteristics of the ship.

If the T26 displacement quoted by BAE as 6,900t was FLD would expect a figure of ~7,600t for EOL, but Hunters figures for FLD 8,800t or higher so BAE number could be light or standard?

PS for the new FFG USN originaly only specified 5% SLA.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:Don't know RN standard but for USN surface combatants allowance...
There was, at the time, a lively discussion whether the Burke Flight III was doable within whatever reserves applied at the time, and after the fact the Prgrm Mgr stated that to get "there" 45% of compartments had their drawings affected. Even though the growth from the previous "edition" on the surface - pun intended - would seem quite manageable:
" Flight I and II vessels displace around 9,000 tons fully loaded, Flight IIA ships displace over 9,500 tons, and Flight III ships displace nearly 10,000 tons. "
- as an aside, haven't the RN standards for general things (like buoyancy reserve) been 'spun off' to Lloyds whereas more specific things (starting with protection levels) are still 'in-house' - though there is not much of that house left after the so-called 'establishments' were abolished (or privatised) across all services?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Growth margin comes in (e.g. T81, T22B2/3), and out (T42, T23), and now coming in again. Its "pros and cons" clearly depends on the circumstances.

- Ships with smaller margin are cheaper, enabling RN to build them in number (T42 and T23). Because of "learning effect in ship building", the ship gets cheaper, and thus even more hulls can be built.

- Ship with larger margin is expensive to build and operate (T81, T22B2 and B3, T26), so not easy to have in number. On the other hand, they are easier to modernize in their later life.

Of course, there are many other arguments there, but in general this is what I analyze. Clearly, it is not "larger is better" nor "smaller is better". It is just a matter of decision.

RN decided to make it larger in both T45, T26 and T31. So now it is the trend. But, we all see how RN struggles to keep its escort number.

"What if T26 was similar to FREMM or F-110 class?". This is clearly a good question, and I think we can surely say "13 smallish T26" must have been already contracted. But, in 30 years later, when T26 is still at work, will RN be happy with smallish T26? Maybe not, as we see in T23.

I simply think, if it is smaller, we are happy for now and see some difficulty in future. If it is larger, we are facing big difficulty to keep the hull number for now (I'm really really feared if 8 T26 really come), but will turn out to be good when RN in future be forced to keep T26s active for 40 years (likely to happen).

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

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

Post by Digger22 »

I agree T26 numbers are at risk. I can see us just getting three, with T31 rising to 10, then getting that number cut too, 8 or less!
Fingers crossed that doesn't happen.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:Don't know RN standard but for USN surface combatants allowance...
There was, at the time, a lively discussion whether the Burke Flight III was doable within whatever reserves applied at the time, and after the fact the Prgrm Mgr stated that to get "there" 45% of compartments had their drawings affected. Even though the growth from the previous "edition" on the surface - pun intended - would seem quite manageable:
" Flight I and II vessels displace around 9,000 tons fully loaded, Flight IIA ships displace over 9,500 tons, and Flight III ships displace nearly 10,000 tons. "
- as an aside, haven't the RN standards for general things (like buoyancy reserve) been 'spun off' to Lloyds whereas more specific things (starting with protection levels) are still 'in-house' - though there is not much of that house left after the so-called 'establishments' were abolished (or privatised) across all services?
The raison d'etre for the Burke Flight III was the larger heavier and much more powerful SPY-6 radar, a lot more of the weight is up high on the deckhouse in the flat panel arrays rather than down low as with SPY-1 radar, SPY-6 weight in the AESA GaN T/R modules.

If remember correctly the Flight III Prog Mgr was Capt. Mark Vandroff, unable to hit 10% SLA or the 12" vertical centre of gravity, KG, mention of 8% for SLA and 6" for KG?

Pushed displacement to ~10,400/10,600t, widened the stern (one captain had applied full power in a turn and washed helo overboard and both pilots lost), also raised ships V-line and used thicker steel plate and scantlings in stern.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Growth margin comes in (e.g. T81, T22B2/3), and out (T42, T23), and now coming in again. Its "pros and cons" clearly depends on the circumstances.

- Ships with smaller margin are cheaper, enabling RN to build them in number (T42 and T23). Because of "learning effect in ship building", the ship gets cheaper, and thus even more hulls can be built.

- Ship with larger margin is expensive to build and operate (T81, T22B2 and B3, T26), so not easy to have in number. On the other hand, they are easier to modernize in their later life.

Of course, there are many other arguments there, but in general this is what I analyze. Clearly, it is not "larger is better" nor "smaller is better". It is just a matter of decision.

RN decided to make it larger in both T45, T26 and T31. So now it is the trend. But, we all see how RN struggles to keep its escort number.

"What if T26 was similar to FREMM or F-110 class?". This is clearly a good question, and I think we can surely say "13 smallish T26" must have been already contracted. But, in 30 years later, when T26 is still at work, will RN be happy with smallish T26? Maybe not, as we see in T23.

I simply think, if it is smaller, we are happy for now and see some difficulty in future. If it is larger, we are facing big difficulty to keep the hull number for now (I'm really really feared if 8 T26 really come), but will turn out to be good when RN in future be forced to keep T26s active for 40 years (likely to happen).
Donald-san, your hypothesis that larger costs extra to build and operate is not quite as clear cut as you state.

For example, the Type 23 design was independently review by YARD before it was built. Their primary recommendation was that the frigate should be built bigger to reduce both build and through life costs. Build costs would be reduced through easier access and by the use of cheaper but thicker steel. While many of their other detailed recommendations were accepted, this one was not because it was decreed that the Type 23's had to fit within the Devonport frigate complex. So extra build costs were accepted.

Another example would be the Type 31. The Arrowhead 140 design is at least 50% bigger than Bae's Leander yet both builders agreed to build at the same (or very similar price). You are quite free to argue why this is true but nevertheless in this case, larger is not more expensive to build.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:If remember correctly the Flight III Prog Mgr was Capt. Mark Vandroff, unable to hit 10% SLA or the 12" vertical centre of gravity, KG, mention of 8% for SLA and 6" for KG?
by 2018 Capt. Casey Mo(n)ton, unsure of the one letter in the surname (I was quoting him for the 45% forced changes, to hit the goal) was in the post by 2018.
Ron5 wrote:Because of "learning effect in ship building", the ship gets cheaper, and thus even more hulls can be built.
I did not bookmark a great article, with graphics, from a BAE type over several decades there, who clearly showed that the T-Ford effect has only been achieved with T-23... even then they were ordered in batches: destroyed an otherwise nice trend line on the unit cost graph.
Ron5 wrote: For example, the Type 23 design was independently review by YARD before it was built. Their primary recommendation was that the frigate should be built bigger to reduce both build and through life costs. Build costs would be reduced through easier access and by the use of cheaper but thicker steel[/quote
OOPS; destroyed the end mark for the quote, somehow
- Access sounds familiar from T-31,
- and cheaper 'sweeter' steal from the Holland Class; both of which came along much later, sure.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:Donald-san, your hypothesis that larger costs extra to build and operate is not quite as clear cut as you state.

For example, the Type 23 design was independently review by YARD before it was built. Their primary recommendation was that the frigate should be built bigger to reduce both build and through life costs. Build costs would be reduced through easier access and by the use of cheaper but thicker steel. While many of their other detailed recommendations were accepted, this one was not because it was decreed that the Type 23's had to fit within the Devonport frigate complex. So extra build costs were accepted.

Another example would be the Type 31. The Arrowhead 140 design is at least 50% bigger than Bae's Leander yet both builders agreed to build at the same (or very similar price). You are quite free to argue why this is true but nevertheless in this case, larger is not more expensive to build.
I largely agree to your point, there are aspects other than size there. But, I still stick to my comment, as you expect. :D

For example, in T23 case, why not rebuild the Devonport frigate complex? Surely, because the cost benefit of making T23 larger is smaller than rebuilding the complex, I guess.

How about the thin steel plates? Interestingly it still continues. And, no other navy is following Dutch Holland class OPV concept. So, there is already an answer there (of course, there can be "optimized thickness" point, so I am not saying RN escorts steel is the best of best. But, interestingly they still stick to it, which means there are some rationales there).

Arrowhead 140 design is new concept, and also it is pretty much lightly armed. Equipment density significantly affects the cost, as expected. But, it does not mean a larger ship is ALWAYS cheaper than a smaller ship when equipped the same. For example, what if
- there are OMT design team active and have some time and money,
- and designed "a 4000t full load light frigate" with the same concept, and not the 6800t IH-class?

Surely,
- the armament/equipment level will be as low as a corvette (=although perfect match with T31), because the concept is spending significant space and weight for easy installation and maintenance
- but it will be significantly cheaper to build and operate than the 6800 t Arrowhead 140 class (smaller is cheaper)

Also, "large hull" concept is strongly affected by the fuel cost. Now it is cheap, and fuel cost is not a big factor. In 1990s-2000s, it was a very big factor. I remember RN was struggling to find fuel cost.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:there are some rationales there
The cheaper, sweet steal is only better - but always cheaper - than naval "hard" steal when sucking up small calibre fire. So I guess the Dutch made up their mind early as to what kind of threats that frigate-sized OPV would be dealing with.
- as we remember, the T23s were never going to meet naval opposition as they were going to merely "trawl" for subs, as a squadron. First, with SeaWolf cover from the mothership, and later, over a wider area, from the SeaHarriers flying off thru-deck cruisers - those should really have been called 'sqdrn leaders' but I guess the 'not-a-carrier' aspect was all important at the time
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:as we remember, the T23s were never going to meet naval opposition as they were going to merely "trawl" for subs, as a squadron. First, with SeaWolf cover from the mothership, and later, over a wider area, from the SeaHarriers flying off thru-deck cruisers - those should really have been called 'sqdrn leaders' but I guess the 'not-a-carrier' aspect was all important at the time
Irrelevant, the YARD review is of the Type 23 was after the Falklands war inspired redesign. The idea of a dumb sonar towing tug was very dead.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, "large hull" concept is strongly affected by the fuel cost. Now it is cheap, and fuel cost is not a big factor. In 1990s-2000s, it was a very big factor. I remember RN was struggling to find fuel cost.
And that depends on the shape & intended use of the ship.

It is true that surface drag is relative to surface area and thus size. But wave drag which is the dominant resistive force at higher speeds diminishes with longer hull forms. So a longer (larger) ship would require less power to propel at the same speed enabling either a higher top speed or a reduction in the rather expensive propulsion train.

Such thinking led behind the suggestion of trimarans which have a very long and thin hull which can be propelled at frigate speeds with a great deal less power and cost.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For example, in T23 case, why not rebuild the Devonport frigate complex? Surely, because the cost benefit of making T23 larger is smaller than rebuilding the complex, I guess.
You know quite well this is irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't change the fact a larger Type 23 would have been cheaper :D

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:For example, in T23 case, why not rebuild the Devonport frigate complex? Surely, because the cost benefit of making T23 larger is smaller than rebuilding the complex, I guess.
You know quite well this is irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't change the fact a larger Type 23 would have been cheaper :D
The only viable option to make the complex bigger would be to extend into the basin itself.
The dry docks are as far back into the land as they can possibly go without shutting the only road access route available within the base or demolishing listed buildings which is obviously a non-starter.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Digger22 wrote:I agree T26 numbers are at risk. I can see us just getting three, with T31 rising to 10, then getting that number cut too, 8 or less!
Fingers crossed that doesn't happen.
Reasonable concern, but since the RN needs an absolute minimum of 8 ASW Frigates (many say this isnt even enough), how can they cut the 5 T26? If they did, they'd need to order at least 5 more T31 that are Tier 1 ASW Frigates. Is it possible to make T31 a tier 1 ASW Frigate? If so, at what cost?

The other problem is then keeping BAE's surface yard busy and in the high ende escort game until T45 replacemwnt comes in. Thus, you'd assume, in that scenario BAE would be contracted to be involved with the subsequent T31 ASW order.

I'm doubtful that the remaining 5 T26 will be cancelled. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it were reduced to 3 though, and some kind of increased ASW capability in a second T31 order, of say 3 hulls, allowing HMG to claim that they are increasing the escort fleet (whilst also making savings on cancelling 2 T26)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

We need to concentrate on the necessity of pursuing whatever the “course of action” may be, rather than finding reasons for not doing it. Obviously a stupid place to put a critical piece of infrastructure in the first place. A demonstrable lack of strategic thinking (like having all your escorts or submarines built in only one shipyard as well).
Another consequence of insufficient Naval orders. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:Reasonable concern, but since the RN needs an absolute minimum of 8 ASW Frigates (many say this isnt even enough), how can they cut the 5 T26? If they did, they'd need to order at least 5 more T31 that are Tier 1 ASW Frigates. Is it possible to make T31 a tier 1 ASW Frigate? If so, at what cost?
Two things here do HMG give a shit if the RN has a tier 1 ASW frigate or would it be a lose of face not to have 8 T-26 now the RAN & RCN have gone for it in good numbers.

Next it will be interesting to see what results come from the Danish navy fitting TAS to is IH class this year in fact the first ship should be fitted now and under test if they are sticking to the time scale put forward by them last year

The next step would be a A-140 with two engines and the gen sets rafted this would allow the ship to make way between 12 and 24 knots on two engines and sprint on four

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

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:For example, in T23 case, why not rebuild the Devonport frigate complex? Surely, because the cost benefit of making T23 larger is smaller than rebuilding the complex, I guess.
You know quite well this is irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't change the fact a larger Type 23 would have been cheaper :D
No objection, but I think you are talking about "the 2nd cost factor" = equipment density. T23 was densely equipped than optimum, so a slightly larger hull must make it cheaper. I think YARD report was pointing it out.

But we know T23 had hull extension plan for several times, but it never was materialized. This means, the learning curve cost reduction wins against larger hull cost reduction (which includes significant design work and (partial) loss of "learning"). This marks big difference against T22B2 being extended from T22B1.

On the other hand, the original point was, is RN-T26 nearly "full" like T23, or relatively "vacant". Looking into RAN and RCN T26, I think it is clear RN-T26 is rather vacant. Which is good for future growth, but surely causing higher cost for hull being large.

This is my point.

Post Reply