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

[new guy]

I'm a bit puzzled, how can a T45 be fitted with a Mk 41 when the space for that VLS has been used for CAMM?

Great question!

The space for the 16x Mk41 cells was actually designed to take 16x A70 cells as opposed to the A50 cells fitted for the Aster15/30. The Aster 70 cells have a footprint that is considerably larger than the Mk41 Strike cells.

Although the Mk8 was eventually fitted the original design allowed the possible incorporation of the 155mm TMF. If fitted the 155mm TMF would have also used the space reserved for the Mk41 cells but in the end the Mk8 ended up with a very generously sized gun room and of course the infamous gym.

It’s impossible to say for sure but if the Mk8 system was swapped for the 57mm system and the Mk41 cells are fitted instead of the A70 cells there should be enough space for a modest number of quad packed CAMM.IMG_1494.jpeg

I'm not so sure. I thought the intent was to reserve space for the Mk 41 from the get go. Could be wrong. Also, the TMF used the same turret as the Mk 8.

By the way, the Bofors 57mm is a surprisingly large system. I suspect there would be little or no savings in space over a Mk 8.

[Ianmb17]

Australia only ordering 6 now not 9

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/nava ... tant-fleet

[lala]

By the way, the Bofors 57mm is a surprisingly large system. I suspect there would be little or no savings in space over a Mk 8.

A salient point on the 57mm Bofors.

Was met with disbelief some years ago, when I pointed out that its turret is larger overall than the BAE MK 45 127mm.

If we were flush with money, I quite like Donald's idea of fitting CAMM where the Harpoons used to be and leaving the gym for MK.41. Sadly we're not.

Australia only ordering 6 now not 9

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/nava ... tant-fleet

At least we're no longer set to be the smaller user of our own product.

[RichardIC]

By the way, the Bofors 57mm is a surprisingly large system. I suspect there would be little or no savings in space over a Mk 8.

A salient point on the 57mm Bofors.

Was met with disbelief some years ago, when I pointed out that its turret is larger overall than the BAE MK 45 127mm.

If we were flush with money, I quite like Donald's idea of fitting CAMM where the Harpoons used to be and leaving the gym for MK.41. Sadly we're not.

Australia only ordering 6 now not 9

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/nava ... tant-fleet

At least we're no longer set to be the smaller user of our own product.

Doesn't give dimensions, but according to BAE's datasheet the Mk 45 above-and-below deck weight in nearly 60k kg without ammunition. For the Mk 110 it's 7k kg which doubles with a full load of ammunition. So I think I'm disbelieving this also. Mk 8 weight is 28k kg without ammo.

The other thing I don't think that anyone believes is that Canada will end up with 15 T26 derivatives. The programme is still in the design phase with no production contract in place.

[Jensy]

A salient point on the 57mm Bofors.

Was met with disbelief some years ago, when I pointed out that its turret is larger overall than the BAE MK 45 127mm.

Doesn't give dimensions, but according to BAE's datasheet the Mk 45 above-and-below deck weight in nearly 60k kg without ammunition. For the Mk 110 it's 7k kg which doubles with a full load of ammunition. So I think I'm disbelieving this also. Mk 8 weight is 28k kg without ammo.

Not really surprising. It was you last time.
Also, more than slightly puzzled why you felt the need to bring mass or below deck considerations into a point that's specific to turret size....

Coming back briefly to the discussion on the River thread about whether the Mk110 57mm gun has a larger footprint than the Mk45 127mm.

I'm still finding it hard to believe, but am happy to be corrected if someone can point towards evidence.

Mk110 57mm Dimensions - Save The Royal Navy:

Length: 4460mm; Width: 3500mm



BAE MK45 Dimensions - BAE Systems inc.

Length: c.4022mm ; Width: 3124mm

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/m ... gun-system
(The PDF Gun System datasheet at the bottom gives 2372.36mm and 1649.73mm for the lengths aft and fore of the training axis).

[RichardIC]

Ok, so slightly larger above-deck footprint but nothing like the mass above or below deck.

[tomuk]

Ok, so slightly larger above-deck footprint but nothing like the mass above or below deck.

The 57mm turret is bit of a big boy for its calibre but it does carry 120 ready rounds in six magazines inside the turret.
If you're happy with 120 rounds and manual reloading it can be non deck penetrating.

[Jensy]

Ok, so slightly larger above-deck footprint but nothing like the mass above or below deck.

I see, four years later, you're still not able to accept when you're incorrect...

[donald_of_tokyo]

[Tempest414]

So just to keep up with the batch 2 costs to date so we can be clear

So this is my understanding

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million

[NickC]

So just to keep up with the batch 2 costs to date so we can be clear

So this is my understanding

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million

You may be optimistic as the last actual T26B1 numbers seen was the 2018 Defence Equipment Plan which quoted a cost to completion of £4,242 million (£1,414 million per ship) even though the BAE B1 contract was only £3.7 billion.
Of the additional £542 million costs over the BAE contract price no breakdown given but assuming a fair proportion was GFE? and will be reflected in higher B2 costs than your figure of £54 million GFE per ship.
MoD announced another £233 million uplift when Ben Wallace declared the delivery slippage from Oct '27 to Oct '28 bringing the cost of the three B1 ship to £1,491 million each.

PS Ignores the previous £1 billion in T26 contracts awarded to BAE for Assessment Plan Design and Demonstration.

[Tempest414]

So just to keep up with the batch 2 costs to date so we can be clear

So this is my understanding

T-26B2 contract 4.2 billion Nov 2022
MOD order for 5 Mk-45 MIFS 181 million Feb 2023
MOD order 2150 sonars 30 million June 2023

This makes the unit cost of a Type 26B2 882 million we need to wait and find out if the £100 million MOD order for CAMM was for all 8 ships or just the first 3 ships but if it was for all 8 it would make the unit cost of a Type 26B2 894 million

You may be optimistic as the last actual T26B1 numbers seen was the 2018 Defence Equipment Plan which quoted a cost to completion of £4,242 million (£1,414 million per ship) even though the BAE B1 contract was only £3.7 billion.
Of the additional £542 million costs over the BAE contract price no breakdown given but assuming a fair proportion was GFE? and will be reflected in higher B2 costs than your figure of £54 million GFE per ship.
MoD announced another £233 million uplift when Ben Wallace declared the delivery slippage from Oct '27 to Oct '28 bringing the cost of the three B1 ship to £1,491 million each.

PS Ignores the previous £1 billion in T26 contracts awarded to BAE for Assessment Plan Design and Demonstration.

My aim is to try and track the cost of T-26B2 as new contracts are signed so maybe I should have said 894 million so far

[Poiuytrewq]

Great signs of progress.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Just a note. The open sidewall (or hatch) at the middle-left of the picture, right below the corner 30mm gun space, is where the space for anti-sub torpedo system (MTLS) are reserved. A bit surprised to see the hatch is there, open. Some hope?

Note, I do think not having MTLS is acceptable, but for me it is just "to reduce crew size" and "to reduce cost a little". If there be man-power and money, it shall surely added there.

[tomuk]

The welding\distortion in the steelwork to end of the hangar below the 30mm sponson looks terrible.

[abc123]

The welding\distortion in the steelwork to end of the hangar below the 30mm sponson looks terrible.

Well, it wasn't easy for the Bob Lone Builder to do everything properly...

[Jdam]

Rather than bad welding I think somethings hit it.

[tomuk]

Rather than bad welding I think somethings hit it.

Whatever has happened i doesn't look right lets hope for a repair.

[Jdam]

Unless we see major progress with HMS Glasgow, I suspect we will have 2 sitting in the dry docks getting fitted out. (I seem to remember that is what happened with the type 45's)

[RichardIC]

By the way, the Bofors 57mm is a surprisingly large system. I suspect there would be little or no savings in space over a Mk 8.

A salient point on the 57mm Bofors.

Was met with disbelief some years ago, when I pointed out that its turret is larger overall than the BAE MK 45 127mm.

If we were flush with money, I quite like Donald's idea of fitting CAMM where the Harpoons used to be and leaving the gym for MK.41. Sadly we're not.

Australia only ordering 6 now not 9

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/nava ... tant-fleet

At least we're no longer set to be the smaller user of our own product.

A salient point on the 57mm Bofors.

Was met with disbelief some years ago, when I pointed out that its turret is larger overall than the BAE MK 45 127mm.

Doesn't give dimensions, but according to BAE's datasheet the Mk 45 above-and-below deck weight in nearly 60k kg without ammunition. For the Mk 110 it's 7k kg which doubles with a full load of ammunition. So I think I'm disbelieving this also. Mk 8 weight is 28k kg without ammo.

Not really surprising. It was you last time.
Also, more than slightly puzzled why you felt the need to bring mass or below deck considerations into a point that's specific to turret size....

Coming back briefly to the discussion on the River thread about whether the Mk110 57mm gun has a larger footprint than the Mk45 127mm.

I'm still finding it hard to believe, but am happy to be corrected if someone can point towards evidence.

Mk110 57mm Dimensions - Save The Royal Navy:

Length: 4460mm; Width: 3500mm



BAE MK45 Dimensions - BAE Systems inc.

Length: c.4022mm ; Width: 3124mm

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/m ... gun-system
(The PDF Gun System datasheet at the bottom gives 2372.36mm and 1649.73mm for the lengths aft and fore of the training axis).

Ok, so slightly larger above-deck footprint but nothing like the mass above or below deck.

I see, four years later, you're still not able to accept when you're incorrect...

It's not my fault that you don't understand what "larger overall" means.

[tomuk]

Unless we see major progress with HMS Glasgow, I suspect we will have 2 sitting in the dry docks getting fitted out. (I seem to remember that is what happened with the type 45's)

I found the comment by Gabriele a bit odd what would be wrong with having more than one T26 fitting out at Scotstoun at the same time?
Here is a shot of three T45s in the yard back in the day.

[Jdam]

[serge750]

thats a lot of CAMM if used to the max...

[tomuk]

Didn't we already have this conversation a few weeks ago when the RN website was redesigned. Seems Navylookout is slow to the game.

[Poiuytrewq]

Beautiful morning for a bit of drone flying.

VideoCapture_20240314-070126.jpg

VideoCapture_20240314-061926.jpg

VideoCapture_20240314-061908.jpg

VideoCapture_20240314-061900.jpg

20240314_035015.jpg