Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Shipyard looks like shit. No overseas buyer would order anything from there.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Agreed - if only the government could have pulled it's finger out of it's @rse to commit to a stream of orders, then BAE would have been willing to invest in a "frigate factory". Given that there is talk of a T83 to follow (it has to be built by BAE), then with perhaps a deal for the remaining T26 hulls plus a T83 drum beat, it's still not too late.Ron5 wrote:Shipyard looks like shit. No overseas buyer would order anything from there.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes it is the naval equivalent of UK car enthusiasts designing and building their cars in their garages. Compared to other nations ship yards it is embarrassing no matter what ships are built their. Part of the Ship Building Strategy should have been the UK Government providing loans etc to persuade BAe to build a Frigate Factory no matter how fast orders were placed for the T-26 and any follow on designs. At least Babcock are investing in their yard to build the T-31/32 or I think they are.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
They certainly are investing. They built a two ship assembly hall for the t31. They already had other facilities left from the QE assembly days. The Bae site is a mess as mentioned above by Ron5.Lord Jim wrote:At least Babcock are investing in their yard to build the T-31/32 or I think they are.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Why?Repulse wrote: T83 to follow (it has to be built by BAE)
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Where?bobp wrote:They already had other facilities left from the QE assembly days.
PoliticsPoiuytrewq wrote:T83 to follow (it has to be built by BAE)
Why?
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
No difference, all the money would come from the same place. Tax payers pockets. Babcock's is just using money from the t31 contract.Lord Jim wrote:Yes it is the naval equivalent of UK car enthusiasts designing and building their cars in their garages. Compared to other nations ship yards it is embarrassing no matter what ships are built their. Part of the Ship Building Strategy should have been the UK Government providing loans etc to persuade BAe to build a Frigate Factory no matter how fast orders were placed for the T-26 and any follow on designs. At least Babcock are investing in their yard to build the T-31/32 or I think they are.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Scotland is Scotland.RichardIC wrote:Politics
No guarantees have been given on how many T83’s will be built, where they will be built or when construction will start.
It’s all up for grabs and Babcock know it.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Because the UK can only afford 14-16 tier one warships and that doesn’t support two yards. If there was a real market for the UK to build tier one warships for other nations it would have happened already - as the T26 showed, designs and systems yes, metal no. Spreading orders will cause inefficiencies and skills issues. It’s better to accept the position and make sure it works.Poiuytrewq wrote:Why?Repulse wrote: T83 to follow (it has to be built by BAE)
I’m ok for Babcock to build Sloops (aka light frigates), OPVs etc even a cheaper ASW frigate, but let’s not get all giddy with competition only for it to bite us in the @rse later.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Correction: HM Government ONLY WANTS TO AFFORD 14-16 Tier 1 Warships!
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
True but it’s the same outcome, and can’t see it being increased anytime soon.Scimitar54 wrote:Correction: HM Government ONLY WANTS TO AFFORD 14-16 Tier 1 Warships!
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
In the recent past, yes.....Going forward I'm not so sure.Repulse wrote:Because the UK can only afford 14-16 tier one warships and that doesn’t support two yards.
Current planning is slowly coming to realise that a western technological superiority can no longer be relied upon. Consequently everything changes. A rate of attrition once again has to be factored into all planning scenarios. Only Fourteen Tier1 Destroyers and Frigates is a ridiculously low number for a nation with 2 CVF's and 4 SSBN's. If the global security picture continues to worsen then more credible escorts will be required probably along with a higher number of F35's.
All these extras cost money and prudence may dictate that the T83 is not built on the finest ASW hull the world has ever seen, the T45 certainly isn't. Therefore, if it's a clean sheet of paper design what advantage does BAE have over Babcock, especially if the new Frigate Factory at Rosyth turns out to be a whole lot more efficient than the Govan/Scotstoun operation?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't think that the T83 will necessarily be based on the T26 hull and if that is the case it's far from a done deal as to which yard is chosen to fabricate the hulls.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
It is highly questionable why you’d invest in future high end surface warships to deal with China or Russia.
When you decide what the uk needs to do alone and against whom or in a none US alliance requirements go down a lot because the opposition goes down a lot. Youre then left with what you wish to contribute to a US lead alliance. This true for many many areas
When you decide what the uk needs to do alone and against whom or in a none US alliance requirements go down a lot because the opposition goes down a lot. Youre then left with what you wish to contribute to a US lead alliance. This true for many many areas
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yeah, it's really a bit more complex than that.Poiuytrewq wrote:Scotland is Scotland.
But this is a news only thread, so perhaps the last dozen posts need deleting.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
It's not "or"....it will be both concurrently.SW1 wrote:It is highly questionable why you’d invest in future high end surface warships to deal with China or Russia.
As more and more naval assets get sucked into the Indo-pacific, the North Atlantic will become neglected again.
The UK does not have enough escorts to cover current commitments. Deploying 20% to 30% of the active escort fleet regularly EoS will put huge strain on the North Atlantic which should remain our primary focus.
Building endless numbers of OPV's and T31's won't help. It's also questionable what use modest sized ASW USV's would be in the North Atlantic if deployed from the T32's.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Then you don’t deploy to the pacific end off, it’s a nice to have in uk security terms.Poiuytrewq wrote:It's not "or"....it will be both concurrently.SW1 wrote:It is highly questionable why you’d invest in future high end surface warships to deal with China or Russia.
As more and more naval assets get sucked into the Indo-pacific, the North Atlantic will become neglected again.
The UK does not have enough escorts to cover current commitments. Deploying 20% to 30% of the active escort fleet regularly EoS will put huge strain on the North Atlantic which should remain our primary focus.
Building endless numbers of OPV's and T31's won't help. It's also questionable what use modest sized ASW USV's would be in the North Atlantic if deployed from the T32's.
For the uk the only useful naval asset against Russia or China is the nuclear submarine force.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
If you don’t deploy to the Pacific, if that is where the threat is, then sooner or later that threat will get closer and closer until it is offshore from OUR COAST.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
How dare youRon5 wrote:Shipyard looks like shit. No overseas buyer would order anything from there.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-sup ... -shipyard/
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
"Keep Scotland Beautiful"jonas wrote:How dare youRon5 wrote:Shipyard looks like shit. No overseas buyer would order anything from there.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-sup ... -shipyard/
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
No mention of the 24 MK41 silo's. I assume that is because we don't yet know what is going into them :-
https://www.forces.net/news/virtual-tou ... eing-built
https://www.forces.net/news/virtual-tou ... eing-built
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Apart from knowing what is immediately available for RN use (in UK weapon stocks), what is actually in the MK41 Silos should be classified, in order to keep potential enemies guessing as to whether they are all either AAW or ASW or ASuW or LA OR any combination of these.