As I have said before, there is no logic to this thinking, other than weak fantasy fulfillment.Jake1992 wrote:RetroSicotte wrote:Why is everyone assuming they are CAMM?
Canada already uses ESSM. It's far more likely they'll just pack that in instead.
Altogether an impressive ship. Wish the City class could take some lessons from it...
Iv said it before not only are we ordering the smallest number of our own design but also arming them to the weakest spec, this won’t look good on the UK and RN on the world stage really.
Each nation is buying to meet their own needs.
For the Canadians, the T26 will be pretty much their only Navy combat vessel. They have no aircraft carriers, no amphibious ships, no nuclear submarines. So of course they want their future frigate to be truly multi-role ASW, AAW & ASuW. Their geography is such that they need to operate in both the Atlantic and Pacific simultaneously, and ships can not quickly move between the two oceans. They need an Atlantic fleet and a Pacific fleet (and an Arctic fleet), so they need numbers.
For the Australians, the T26s will be working alongside just 3 Hobart AAW destroyers primarily to protect their amphibious task group. With just 3 AAW destroyers and no aircraft carrier, of course they need their T26s to have excellent AAW capabilities as well as ASW.
By all means argue that the UK needs more T26s, or they should be better equipped. But support your arguments on the basis of why the UK needs such capabilities and for what tasks.
To say that we need more T26 or more capable T26 just because we have to over-match two of our closest allies is nonsense. We will not be fighting Canada or Australia. The RN needs to spend its budget to meet its actual needs and not spend it so you can win a game of top trumps.