Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RichardIC]

Would note agree with your analysis but not your solution, the T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and not the faintest hint RN will be finding the necessary funds to upgrade it to one, the CSC and Hunter will be Tier 1 ships, but for BAE to bring T26 up to CSC/Hunter equivalent capabilities expect looking ~£billion cost per new ship and as V. Adm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support made quite clear in his interview 3 months ago there will be no more ships based on the T26 as its just too expensive.

RN should have never forgotten when fighting a war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum and not lose touch with reality as the RN did by over specifying the T26 which ended up twice the size of a T23 and costing £4.7 billion for three ships that are not even Tier 1.

Complete bollocks.

[Lord Jim]

The T-26 is a Tier 1 platform, especially with regards to ASW. If the loadout of the Mk41 justifies their inclusion in the design then it will be even more so. Yes the T-26 is expensive, especially the bill for the frst three but the price per ship for the five that make up the second batch should be less and if the build tempo was increased and the Batch three became the replacement for the T-45 who knows how cost effective the programme may become or not.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Would note agree with your analysis but not your solution, the T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and not the faintest hint RN will be finding the necessary funds to upgrade it to one, the CSC and Hunter will be Tier 1 ships, but for BAE to bring T26 up to CSC/Hunter equivalent capabilities expect looking ~£billion cost per new ship and as V. Adm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support made quite clear in his interview 3 months ago there will be no more ships based on the T26 as its just too expensive.

I think you are talking two different things.
1: T26 "AAW" capability is not enough as tier-1 escort.
2: money to build more T26 will not be there.

Item-1: As many says here, T26 is surely a tier-1 ASW asset. How on AAW? If you compare many of the NATO ASW frigates, FREMM (not FREDA) carries only 16 Aster15. I do not think 48 CAMM is "far behind" it.

But, French FDI and US Constellation class are adding long-range AAW missile, a new trend. I also hope something to be added from T26B2.

Item-2 might be right. I am one of the few persons proposing "more T26 than T32". It is a good point to debate.

For example, I really think, if the virtual opponent is primarily Russia (as US gradually incline to China), ASW is the most important aspect, and hence T26 is what is needed. But, I totally agree other ideas may also come in here.

[donald_of_tokyo]

2nd post...

... RN should have never forgotten when fighting a war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum and not lose touch with reality as the RN did by over specifying the T26 which ended up twice the size of a T23 and costing £4.7 billion for three ships that are not even Tier 1.

I think you are saying RN must go back to the 1970-80s concept of "small escorts in number". Typically, T42, T22 and T21. T23 is also in the same league. Good point to discuss. If so, RN must NOT go with T83 "cruiser", but must go with "T46 (47?)" AAW destroyer as a direct replacement for T42. NOT top-level AAW capability, no ASM, minimum ASW, but in number. I agree here.

T31 "as is" is a very basic GP frigate. For me, it is a frigate-sized hull with heavy-corvette level armament. Is that level "good enough" for you?

If 1-st tier level of AAW capability is needed (say, frigate with long-range AAW missile AND short-rage AAW missiles in number), the same can be applied to T26 B1. With higher level of CMS, 48 CAMM and 24-cell Mk.41 VLS already there, up-arming AAW capability of T26 will be much cheaper than doing the same to T31.

If T31 with "24 CAMM" is what is needed, it will be cheap. And, this means T26 is already good enough in AAW, while providing 1st-tier ASW capability T31 will never provide (reflected into the cost).

Note that I agree this part of your argument is very good point to discuss. Not denying your argument. And, what is important will be "what level of AAW, ASW and land-attack capabilities" is the minimum needed?

- "Smaller hull to make it cheap" dogma is thrown away by RN. T45, T26, and T31 all are designed to handle future growth margins. On the other hand, French navy is building FDI in small-hull dogma. Interesting to see how it evolves.

- What is making T26 expensive was touted to be the mission bay and 24-cell VLS. As an ASW asset, these are not needed. Actually, I was saying so. But, current mood is that, RN says mission bay is must, many here states Mk.41 VLS is must. It was correct?

- How the program proceeded (including the "wasted" £650M for River B2s and 3 years of "study" wasting similar amount of money), must be criticized. Not going for frigate factory, as well. "Too slow" is what the RN admiral also stated as a negative side of T26. It must be corrected, I agree.

- But, T26 is now in production phase. RN can "add" 1st-tiear escorts with "less than £1B" cost easily (because all the design and initial cost, which costs as much as 3-unit cost in both FREMM and FDI (by French government)) is already paid. (As such, "cutting" one T26 will never provide £1B+ money)

.... and this discussion shall continue...

[Tempest414]

If there is a real want by HMG to grow the RN escort fleet then for me Type 83 needs to become Type 47 based on type 26 and Type 32 needs to become type 31 batch 2. Once we are clear on this we should order 4 Batches of 4 ship type 26 sub classes to include 4 more type 26 as is followed by 4 type 27 a type 26 with fixed panel radar and 40 MK-41 VLS followed by 8 type 47 in 2 batches with new AAW radar and 80+ Mk-41 VLS

Type 31 should come in to service with 24 CAMM , 16 MK-41 VLS and a HMS the Batch 2's should come in upgraded a fixed panel radar and 32 Mk-41 VLS

[SW1]

This tier business of ships is about as sensible as assigning tiers to nations armed forces in general. What sort of tier is a type 45 if it’s spent most of the last 10 years broken in dry dock or the type 23s mothballed due to lack of crew and spares, tier 0…..

[Caribbean]

It does, however, have a use. The RN has been rating ships capabilities virtually since it's inception, with 1st Rate through to 6th Rate and "Unrated" vessels, based largely on number of guns, when that was the most significant factor, but also including vessel size, crew size, number of masts etc. The point is that it describes the intended use of such a vessel in broad terms

I would say that, today, a Tier 1 vessel is one intended to take any and all forms of military action against any and all opponents, whereas a Tier 2 vessel is intended to primarily act in a defensive role, or to take aggressive action in more limited circumstances.

Everything else that undertakes a combat-related task, such as MHCP and Patrol, but is not intended to fight (other than in self-defence), are Tier 3. It's just a convenient phrase to broadly categorise intended capabilities.

Of course, there is much debate to be had around whether a specific vessel is sufficiently well built and equipped to fulfil it's intended purpose.

[NickC]

A few thoughts on my previous post saying T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and the various reactions, undoubtedly the T26 is a Tier 1 ASW frigate, but to me there is more than just ASW to a frigate.

How would you rate it against the new USN Constellation frigate coming in at what looks like substantially lower cost than a T26 which has roughly similar ASW specs to the T26, the quiet ASW hull of the Italian FREMM and its quiet HED propulsion system plus a TAS and VDS, but no HMS, Constellation also equipped with the much more powerful SPY-6(V)3 radar and an Aegis CMS and its fire control system giving it the ability of firing 90nm range SM-2s and local area ESSMs from its 32 Mk41 VLS cells and additionally 21 tube RIM deck launcher for CIWS plus 16 deck canister launchers for its anti-ship NSMs.

To me if you rate T26 as Tier 1, would you rate Constellation Tier 1+++ with its much more capable AAW, each to their own valuation.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

A few thoughts on my previous post saying T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and the various reactions, undoubtedly the T26 is a Tier 1 ASW frigate, but to me there is more than just ASW to a frigate.

That's entirely dependent on the stated requirement. Comparing the City Class to the Hunt Class, the CSC, or Constellation is comparing apples with oranges. They are each expected to do different things and it is this expectation that has shaped their respective configurations.

[wargame_insomniac]

A few thoughts on my previous post saying T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and the various reactions, undoubtedly the T26 is a Tier 1 ASW frigate, but to me there is more than just ASW to a frigate.

How would you rate it against the new USN Constellation frigate coming in at what looks like substantially lower cost than a T26 which has roughly similar ASW specs to the T26, the quiet ASW hull of the Italian FREMM and its quiet HED propulsion system plus a TAS and VDS, but no HMS, Constellation also equipped with the much more powerful SPY-6(V)3 radar and an Aegis CMS and its fire control system giving it the ability of firing 90nm range SM-2s and local area ESSMs from its 32 Mk41 VLS cells and additionally 21 tube RIM deck launcher for CIWS plus 16 deck canister launchers for its anti-ship NSMs.

To me if you rate T26 as Tier 1, would you rate Constellation Tier 1+++ with its much more capable AAW, each to their own valuation.

If we are looking at escorts in terms of their aptitude and suitability to attack and defind against targets on land/sea/air/submarine if you want a ship to be an all-rounder and good at all four, then you are looking at sometjing like the USN Arleigh Burke, although would rate it's AAW as great die to Aegis and radars.

Looking at RN ships, T45's Sea Viper (PAAMS) air-defence system and grear radars would appear to rank it comparable to Arleigh Burke, albeit lacking sufficient quantity of VLS launchers to give it sufficent durability versus sustained waves of missile attacks, but it currently lacks Ballistic Missile Defence. It has decent mix of primary and secondary/point defence guns. It has HMS and carries helicopters with anti-submarine torpedoes. Yet it lacks it's own anti-submarine torpedoes or ASROC. It has no land attack cruise missile and four of the six ships currently have Harpoon but it needs updating to Block II+ standard or a similar new ASM.

The T26 are designed around acoutiscially quiet hull and great sonar. It has decent mix of primary and secondary/point defence guns, and decent mumber = 72 VLS launchers. It currently lacks ASROC, land attack cruise missiles and ASM, but each of those could be covered by using the 24 cells Mk41 VLS. For AAW it lacks the top quality radars and medium range Aster-30 missiles of the T45, but with 48 CAMM launchers is ok at defending itself.

The T31 has been discussed and I stick with my opinion that it is chronically underarmed as currently projected - it will need refits to add in all the weapons sytems that are FFBNW to be even considered a Tier-Two escort.

So I would nt rate the T45 or T26 as good as the all rounder qualities of the USN Arleigh Burke's but I would argue that they desrve to be regarded as Tier-One escorts in their respective AAW/ASW specialisms. But this dependant on T45 getting first the required PIP refit and then adding in the missing VLS launchers. If the T26 mk41 VLS are properly filled, then T26 could yet have decent Anti Ship and land attack Missile capability, so long as MoD does nt try penny pinching here.

[JohnM]

A few thoughts on my previous post saying T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and the various reactions, undoubtedly the T26 is a Tier 1 ASW frigate, but to me there is more than just ASW to a frigate.

How would you rate it against the new USN Constellation frigate coming in at what looks like substantially lower cost than a T26 which has roughly similar ASW specs to the T26, the quiet ASW hull of the Italian FREMM and its quiet HED propulsion system plus a TAS and VDS, but no HMS, Constellation also equipped with the much more powerful SPY-6(V)3 radar and an Aegis CMS and its fire control system giving it the ability of firing 90nm range SM-2s and local area ESSMs from its 32 Mk41 VLS cells and additionally 21 tube reRIM deck launcher for CIWS plus 16 deck canister launchers for its anti-ship NSMs.

To me if you rate T26 as Tier 1, would you rate Constellation Tier 1+++ with its much more capable AAW, each to their own valuation.

Again, that's your valuation, not RNs... t26 may have started life as a Global Combat Ship, but now it has two main tasks: to be the main ASW tool of the CSG (together with the Merlins) and sub-hunting in the North Atlantic... and it's supposed to excel at those two tasks; in fact, I'd argue that for once the typical RN hyperbole is right and T26 will be the best ASW frigate in the world... does it do AAW as well as the Constellation? No... does it matter to the RN? Not in the slightest... T26 won't be doing convoy escort and plugging holes left by the Burkes escorting the CVNs... from that perspective, if your golden standard for Tier 1 in both ASW and AAW is Constellation, then I'd argue T26 is Tier 2 in AAW (capable of self and local area defense) and Tier 1++++ in ASW and that THAT'S EXACTLY what the RN wants them to be...

As to cost, the projected costs in steady state for both classes are approximately 800 million of the local currency. Clearly there's a problem of scale with the T26 (advantage, Constellation) because we're talking about a 8-ship run, vs. a 20 maybe even 40-ship eventually. However, I'd argue the relative costs are not that different and certainly very dependent on exchange rates.

[Lord Jim]

I think the last all rounds AAW/ASW escort the Royal Navy had was HMS Bristol. The T-26 could become one if its radar was tweaked and US SM-6 missiles were installed in some of its Mk41 VLS. I do believe that the next five T-26 should move away from the mushroom launcher for Sea Ceptor and increase the number of Mk41 VLS fitted. An additional Strike length and two Standard length Mk41s for the next five T-26 should not be that expensive and together with ExLS for the latter should be a priority for the Navy. AS fr continued T-26 production, given how long the build programme for the original eight will be, who is to say manet could not be found later one to continue with ships nine and ten or more, and with each batch becoming more versatile:
3x Batch 1
8x Batch 2 (Three replacing the five planned T-32)
8x Batch 3 (Replacing the T-83)
Giving the Royal Navy nineteen Tier 1 Escorts and compliments by the five T-31 and three to six OPV(R), the replacement for the B1 Rivers.
One can dream.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A few thoughts on my previous post saying T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and the various reactions, undoubtedly the T26 is a Tier 1 ASW frigate, but to me there is more than just ASW to a frigate.

How would you rate it against the new USN Constellation frigate coming in at what looks like substantially lower cost than a T26 which has roughly similar ASW specs to the T26, the quiet ASW hull of the Italian FREMM and its quiet HED propulsion system plus a TAS and VDS, but no HMS, Constellation also equipped with the much more powerful SPY-6(V)3 radar and an Aegis CMS and its fire control system giving it the ability of firing 90nm range SM-2s and local area ESSMs from its 32 Mk41 VLS cells and additionally 21 tube RIM deck launcher for CIWS plus 16 deck canister launchers for its anti-ship NSMs.

To me if you rate T26 as Tier 1, would you rate Constellation Tier 1+++ with its much more capable AAW, each to their own valuation.

According to your judgement, it means;

1: FREMM "as-is" carries only 16 Aster-15 and 8 Exocet. So, if Constellation-class is a Tier-1 escort, FREMM and T26B1 are less. Interesting point, but ANZAC frigate (which I think is a typical tier-2 escort) with 32-ESSM and 8 Harpoon (RAN) or 20-CAMM (RNZN) will be named tier-3 or 4?

2: T26 B1 has a mission bay. RN Admiral stated that flexibility provided by the bay is essential in future warfare. Then, can US Constellation class, without mission bay, remain as "Tier-1"? Even USS Arley Burk class will not.

3: T45's ASW capability and anti-ship capability is very low. This make T45 fall down from being tier-1 escort?

As such, definition of tier-1 is related to its required task. For me, an asset required to cover one or two of the tier-1 tasks in the fleet is a tier-1 asset.
- AAW for T45 and ASW for T26.
- FREMM is also tier-1. FREDA's AAW capability may NOT be tier-1, but its ASW is. So FREDA is still a tier-1 escort.
- FDI, not sure. Its AAW is good, but not tier-1. It ASW is "so-so", so not tier-1. In this definition, FDI is NOT a tier-1 escort, even though it has better AAW capability than T26 and FREMM.
- T31 are not required to cover those hi-end tasks in both regime, so it is not a tier-1 asset.

Improving the radar is, I agree, the top priority on T26. Adding long-range AAW capability, I do not know. Add BMD capability to T45 before it. For T26, maybe mixing CAMM and CAMM-ER be a good solution, which is relatively cheap.


On the cost. I also do not think T26 is too expensive compared to US Constellation class. It is intentionally made costy by requiring slow building. This is why I push to invest "T32 money (if exist)" into "more T26", as it will significantly cheapen T26's cost. Keeping the "1.5 year drumbeat" even in the late phase of production (Batch 2) is exactly what shall be claimed as "wasting the money and build capacity"

[Digger22]

Yep, drumbeat is not a rude word.
I would like to see a policy of starting a new ship every year. With a 25 yr life, this eventually gives a 25 ship Escort fleet. Saves wasting money on expensive LIFEX like refits. Giving higher ship availability, we could even get back to 4 Escort squadrons of 5 mixed Escorts to act as CBG escort group, Littoral response Escort Group, or General Surface action force. Leaving 5 in refit/training.
Good for industry, good for the RN, good for the Taxpayer.

[Tempest414]

If we take the Constellation class weapons load out

1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 22 RAM , 16 NSM

if it carries 32 ESSM in 8 cells and 16 SM2 in 16 cell this leave's 8 cells for ASROC so in effect it will have 54 point and local area AAW missiles and 16 long range AAW missiles plus 8 ASROC

Type 26 weapons load

1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 24 VLS

so in effect it carries 48 point and local area AAW missiles plus point defence guns and has the same 24 VLS free to carry what ever weapon the RN want

so form a weapons point of view the only thing is the 16 NSM and given no RN ship will have a anti ship missile it is hard to pin this on type 26 however type 26 could carry the same 16 NSM if needed

I would also say that if wanted Artisan could support tracking info for SM-2 to be launched from Mk-41

[NickC]

On the cost. I also do not think T26 is too expensive compared to US Constellation class. It is intentionally made costy by requiring slow building. This is why I push to invest "T32 money (if exist)" into "more T26", as it will significantly cheapen T26's cost. Keeping the "1.5 year drumbeat" even in the late phase of production (Batch 2) is exactly what shall be claimed as "wasting the money and build capacity"

Donald-san looked at the CRS reports over time on Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress (R44972) which shows from initial R&D spend plus procurement for first three ships $3,720 million ~ £2.8billion compared to the £4.7 billion known contracts for the three T26s. I'm sure not totally apples to apples but think it gives you a realistic indication of costs and shows the three T26 approx £2 billion more expensive than the three Constellation to date.

If we take the Constellation class weapons load out
1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 22 RAM , 16 NSM
if it carries 32 ESSM in 8 cells and 16 SM2 in 16 cell this leave's 8 cells for ASROC so in effect it will have 54 point and local area AAW missiles and 16 long range AAW missiles plus 8 ASROC
Type 26 weapons load
1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 24 VLS
so in effect it carries 48 point and local area AAW missiles plus point defence guns and has the same 24 VLS free to carry what ever weapon the RN want
so form a weapons point of view the only thing is the 16 NSM and given no RN ship will have a anti ship missile it is hard to pin this on type 26 however type 26 could carry the same 16 NSM if needed
I would also say that if wanted Artisan could support tracking info for SM-2 to be launched from Mk-41

I would highlight the difference in AAW capabilities, MBDA quote Sea Ceptor range 25 km with its 500 km2 coverage, the SM-2 coverage ~ 22,000 km2, if my figures correct its 44 times area coverage that of Sea Ceptor. Area coverage doesn't tell the whole story as its just one metric but indicative.

A few thoughts on the respective radars Artisan and SPY-6(V)3. Important metrics for the capability of radars are aperture, size of antennas/arrays, and power. Understand both radars are AESA, the SPY-6 comes new gen GaN sensors which said can take approx five times the electric power of the earlier gen sensors in Artisan. Aperture size, we know SPY-6(V)3 figures as built with 2' sq RMAs with nine per face, three faces totaling 108' sq ft, now making a big assumption Artisan single antenna 36 sq ft same size as a single face of a SPY-6 so that would make SPY-6 approx 15 times more powerful/sensitive than Artisan. If my ball park figure wrong appreciate any input.

[90inFIRST]

I think the point your missing there is that Artisan rotates so it shows it 1/4 sized smaller face to the all 4 1/4's surely making up for its smaller size. The size also allows it to be mounted far higher up allowing the radar horizon to be pushed further back, plus it uses less deck area and energy

[Caribbean]

The rotating design was deliberately chosen (for the benefits noted above). The early development system (MESAR) was a fixed-panel design, but it was realised early on that losing a panel resulted in permanent "loss of vision" across a full quadrant. The Sampson two-panel design was an attempt to allow continued 360 degree coverage even if one panel was lost completely. Artisan is just a single-panel version of Sampson, retaining the advantage of higher placement/ greater range, though not as robust in terms of damage/ loss.

The great strength of the ALS/ Artisan/ Sampson range is in its software (which is probably why most of the current effort seems to be into software-defined radar and applications of AI). The hardware side is fairly standardised these days and could probably be handled by re-fitting the array with updated T/R modules (if that hasn't already been done, fully or partially, on the QT)

[NickC]

I think the point your missing there is that Artisan rotates so it shows it 1/4 sized smaller face to the all 4 1/4's surely making up for its smaller size. The size also allows it to be mounted far higher up allowing the radar horizon to be pushed further back, plus it uses less deck area and energy

I don't follow your logic on the first point, the SPY-6 much higher RF power and larger aperture giving the sensitivity of either longer ranges or ability at shorter ranges to track much smaller RCS targets.

You make a very good second point re the smaller size/weight of the Artisan allows it to be mounted higher up allowing the radar horizon to be pushed further back. For that very reason Saab offers the new generation Sea Giraffe GaN S-band 4A in a four panel configuration plus the lightweight 295kg rotating GaN Sea Giraffe X-band 1X on top. In general X-band higher frequency/definition optimum at shorter ranges and S-band better at longer ranges.

[Tempest414]

On the cost. I also do not think T26 is too expensive compared to US Constellation class. It is intentionally made costy by requiring slow building. This is why I push to invest "T32 money (if exist)" into "more T26", as it will significantly cheapen T26's cost. Keeping the "1.5 year drumbeat" even in the late phase of production (Batch 2) is exactly what shall be claimed as "wasting the money and build capacity"

Donald-san looked at the CRS reports over time on Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress (R44972) which shows from initial R&D spend plus procurement for first three ships $3,720 million ~ £2.8billion compared to the £4.7 billion known contracts for the three T26s. I'm sure not totally apples to apples but think it gives you a realistic indication of costs and shows the three T26 approx £2 billion more expensive than the three Constellation to date.

If we take the Constellation class weapons load out
1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 22 RAM , 16 NSM
if it carries 32 ESSM in 8 cells and 16 SM2 in 16 cell this leave's 8 cells for ASROC so in effect it will have 54 point and local area AAW missiles and 16 long range AAW missiles plus 8 ASROC
Type 26 weapons load
1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 24 VLS
so in effect it carries 48 point and local area AAW missiles plus point defence guns and has the same 24 VLS free to carry what ever weapon the RN want
so form a weapons point of view the only thing is the 16 NSM and given no RN ship will have a anti ship missile it is hard to pin this on type 26 however type 26 could carry the same 16 NSM if needed
I would also say that if wanted Artisan could support tracking info for SM-2 to be launched from Mk-41

I would highlight the difference in AAW capabilities, MBDA quote Sea Ceptor range 25 km with its 500 km2 coverage, the SM-2 coverage ~ 22,000 km2, if my figures correct its 44 times area coverage that of Sea Ceptor. Area coverage doesn't tell the whole story as its just one metric but indicative.

A few thoughts on the respective radars Artisan and SPY-6(V)3. Important metrics for the capability of radars are aperture, size of antennas/arrays, and power. Understand both radars are AESA, the SPY-6 comes new gen GaN sensors which said can take approx five times the electric power of the earlier gen sensors in Artisan. Aperture size, we know SPY-6(V)3 figures as built with 2' sq RMAs with nine per face, three faces totaling 108' sq ft, now making a big assumption Artisan single antenna 36 sq ft same size as a single face of a SPY-6 so that would make SPY-6 approx 15 times more powerful/sensitive than Artisan. If my ball park figure wrong appreciate any input.

Firstly I was talking about the local area and point defence missiles and pointing out that if FFGX is quad packing ESSM into 8 of the 32 VLS cells that leaves 24 cells same as T-26 so when it comes to ships local area defence FFGX will carry 54 missiles and T-26 will carry 48 leaving both with 24 Mk-41 cells With this said if FFGX is packing SM-2 this will eat into the 24 remaining cells

As for ranges of cause SM-2 has greater range over CAMM but we have to remember that CAMM has an effective range of 25 km and max range of 50+ km's we need to bear in mind the RN has always under played its missile ranges this was seen with Sea Dart Mod 0 which had a stated range of 74 km but had 2 kills over 100 km in the Falklands war

Next I was pointing out that Artisan could support i-denting and tracking of targets for SM-2 from said Mk-41 cells once the software was installed to CMS I was not talking about the pro's and con's of each radar

[Dobbo]

There is criticism (I don’t know how valid) in Australia on the T26 design and the issue of it being overweight - presumably top weight as it is based on the heavy radar.

I think this is a good indication that the T26 design is not suitable for the T83 (assuming it is a traditional destroyer / cruiser configuration).

[NickC]

On the cost. I also do not think T26 is too expensive compared to US Constellation class. It is intentionally made costy by requiring slow building. This is why I push to invest "T32 money (if exist)" into "more T26", as it will significantly cheapen T26's cost. Keeping the "1.5 year drumbeat" even in the late phase of production (Batch 2) is exactly what shall be claimed as "wasting the money and build capacity"

Donald-san looked at the CRS reports over time on Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress (R44972) which shows from initial R&D spend plus procurement for first three ships $3,720 million ~ £2.8billion compared to the £4.7 billion known contracts for the three T26s. I'm sure not totally apples to apples but think it gives you a realistic indication of costs and shows the three T26 approx £2 billion more expensive than the three Constellation to date.

If we take the Constellation class weapons load out
1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 22 RAM , 16 NSM
if it carries 32 ESSM in 8 cells and 16 SM2 in 16 cell this leave's 8 cells for ASROC so in effect it will have 54 point and local area AAW missiles and 16 long range AAW missiles plus 8 ASROC
Type 26 weapons load
1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 x CAMM , 24 VLS
so in effect it carries 48 point and local area AAW missiles plus point defence guns and has the same 24 VLS free to carry what ever weapon the RN want
so form a weapons point of view the only thing is the 16 NSM and given no RN ship will have a anti ship missile it is hard to pin this on type 26 however type 26 could carry the same 16 NSM if needed
I would also say that if wanted Artisan could support tracking info for SM-2 to be launched from Mk-41

I would highlight the difference in AAW capabilities, MBDA quote Sea Ceptor range 25 km with its 500 km2 coverage, the SM-2 coverage ~ 22,000 km2, if my figures correct its 44 times area coverage that of Sea Ceptor. Area coverage doesn't tell the whole story as its just one metric but indicative.

A few thoughts on the respective radars Artisan and SPY-6(V)3. Important metrics for the capability of radars are aperture, size of antennas/arrays, and power. Understand both radars are AESA, the SPY-6 comes new gen GaN sensors which said can take approx five times the electric power of the earlier gen sensors in Artisan. Aperture size, we know SPY-6(V)3 figures as built with 2' sq RMAs with nine per face, three faces totaling 108' sq ft, now making a big assumption Artisan single antenna 36 sq ft same size as a single face of a SPY-6 so that would make SPY-6 approx 15 times more powerful/sensitive than Artisan. If my ball park figure wrong appreciate any input.

Firstly I was talking about the local area and point defence missiles and pointing out that if FFGX is quad packing ESSM into 8 of the 32 VLS cells that leaves 24 cells same as T-26 so when it comes to ships local area defence FFGX will carry 54 missiles and T-26 will carry 48 leaving both with 24 Mk-41 cells With this said if FFGX is packing SM-2 this will eat into the 24 remaining cells

As for ranges of cause SM-2 has greater range over CAMM but we have to remember that CAMM has an effective range of 25 km and max range of 50+ km's we need to bear in mind the RN has always under played its missile ranges this was seen with Sea Dart Mod 0 which had a stated range of 74 km but had 2 kills over 100 km in the Falklands war

Next I was pointing out that Artisan could support i-denting and tracking of targets for SM-2 from said Mk-41 cells once the software was installed to CMS I was not talking about the pro's and con's of each radar

I must admit have never seen any hint that the 99kg Sea Ceptor missile with its solid rocket propellant motor will exceed 25km effective range claimed by MBDA, even with the 160kg CAMM-ER/Albatross MBDA only states 40km+, the 280kg ESSM is 50km range. At longer ranges the solid rocket motors missiles are coasting after their motors burn out after ~ 7 to 10 seconds of thrust and losing speed limiting ability to maneuver, that's why we now see the new missiles like the 112kg VL Mica NG coming into service in 2026 with its dual-pulse rocket motor that will provide additional energy to the missile giving it the required power for maneuverability at the end of its flight and its ability to intercept targets at 40km +.

The SM-2 is a 700kg+ missile giving it the rocket motor power for a max range of ~160km+ ~ 6x+ the range of a Sea Ceptor which gives its capability of a massive area coverage compared with Sea Ceptor. I would also note as before Constellation comes 16 deck canister launchers for its NSMs as well as 32 Mk41 launchers and its Mk 144 launcher for 21 88kg RAMs.

Maybe Artisan might be used for tracking targets for SM-2s, radar tech has moved on with new gen navy radars, think the NS110 fitted to the T31 more capable and the SPY-6 more powerful again, how essential that would be or advantages for SM-2 use don't know. Whether the T26 BAE CMS could be adopted to fit the LM IAFCL, International Aegis Fire Control Loop for ESSMs and SM-2s unknown, no doubt would be expensive and would think unlikely.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I must admit have never seen any hint that the 99kg Sea Ceptor missile with its solid rocket propellant motor will exceed 25km effective range claimed by MBDA, even with the 160kg CAMM-ER/Albatross MBDA only states 40km+, the 280kg ESSM is 50km range. At longer ranges the solid rocket motors missiles are coasting after their motors burn out after ~ 7 to 10 seconds of thrust and losing speed limiting ability to maneuver, that's why we now see the new missiles like the 112kg VL Mica NG coming into service in 2026 with its dual-pulse rocket motor that will provide additional energy to the missile giving it the required power for maneuverability at the end of its flight and its ability to intercept targets at 40km +.

I think both are saying the same thing. CAMM will be maneuverable up to 20+ km = horizon, but will be able to slowly coast at longer range. Smaller kinetic energy means less agility and tiny kill-zone, will be good only for slow moving something.

I also think modernizing CAMM with dual-pulse rocket motor will be important. Its already a world standard (CAMM-ER's motor is already dual pulse).

When ignited at the top of the trajectory, it will significantly improve the range.

When ignited right before the impact, it will significantly improve the terminal mobility.

The SM-2 is a 700kg+ missile giving it the rocket motor power for a max range of ~160km+ ~ 6x+ the range of a Sea Ceptor which gives its capability of a massive area coverage compared with Sea Ceptor. I would also note as before Constellation comes 16 deck canister launchers for its NSMs as well as 32 Mk41 launchers and its Mk 144 launcher for 21 88kg RAMs.

Maybe Artisan might be used for tracking targets for SM-2s, radar tech has moved on with new gen navy radars, think the NS110 fitted to the T31 more capable and the SPY-6 more powerful again, how essential that would be or advantages for SM-2 use don't know. Whether the T26 BAE CMS could be adopted to fit the LM IAFCL, International Aegis Fire Control Loop for ESSMs and SM-2s unknown, no doubt would be expensive and would think unlikely.

No big objection, but I do not think having a long range AAW missile is "must" at least for CSG escort.

Also, I shall point out that, on the USS Constellation class cost, 16 NSM is NOT included. Its launch control system with its wiring and software integration is included in the ship cost, but at least for SSM, what matters is the missile cost, which is budgeted elsewhere.

In other words, T26/T31 can add NSM relatively easily (for ship cost) but it must be associated with buying costy stock of number of NSM missiles themselves (for total cost).

# Actually, SM-2 and others are the same. As such, if SM-6 blk1B is to be adopted as "long range hyper-sonic ASM" with secondary long-range AAW "sniper" capability (but with small number of missiles, say 8), it will solve many things at once? But, to make this happen, we need a better radar (which is not deadly expensive) and numbers of SM-6 missiles themselves (which is costy).

[NickC]

No big objection, but I do not think having a long range AAW missile is "must" at least for CSG escort.

Assume medium range AAW of benefit if T26 operating in the GIUK gap with limited air support or say 50 miles out from the noise created by the carrier, RFA fleet replenishment ships etc so as to be in the quieter waters to maximise the probability of its sonar finding an enemy sub, not an easy task with the newer quieter subs, think the T45s would be much closer to carrier to protect it and offer limited protection to the T26 that far out, can also envisage times when CAP protecting carrier stretched at times leaving T26 isolated and vulnerable.

[wargame_insomniac]

Assume medium range AAW of benefit if T26 operating in the GIUK gap with limited air support or say 50 miles out from the noise created by the carrier, RFA fleet replenishment ships etc so as to be in the quieter waters to maximise the probability of its sonar finding an enemy sub, not an easy task with the newer quieter subs, think the T45s would be much closer to carrier to protect it and offer limited protection to the T26 that far out, can also envisage times when CAP protecting carrier stretched at times leaving T26 isolated and vulnerable.

So far have assumed the UK CSG will have 4 escorts (2*T45 + 2*T26) vs 5 standard escorts for a USN CSG. But if CSG21 is an example of what will regularly happen in the future (and the fact that HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen is currently deployed with USN Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group 8 seems to indicate so) and at least one foriegn escort added to future UK CSG, that gives more options).

With at least 5 escorts, 4 could be kept in close to the carrier and one of the T26 could be given wider sweep, able to keep greater distance from the noise of carrier/RFA/other escorts to be able to use their sonar for greater effect?

In respects of the AAW defences of the T26, several people have mentioned before about the importance of having several layers of defence with Point Blank / Short / Medium / Long Ranges. I am assuming that SM-6 would be considered long range, and that if any RN ship were to carry these, that it would be the AAW optimised T45.

So it sounds as if the T26 are lacking a medium range AAW defence, with CAMM covering the short range defence. Am I right in thinking that it is the SM-2 that USN uses for medium range AAW?

If so then T26 would then simply need to carry a few SM-2 in the mix of mssiles carried in the Mk41 VLS. With 24 cells, the T26 could possibly carry half a dozen of each of SM-2/Tomahawk/NSM/ASROC (or adjust mix to suit the specific mission), wih 48 CAMM to cover the shorter ranged AAW defence, and Phoenix CIWS for point blank defence.