Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Well they aren't installing "Mushrooms", for Sea Ceptor, so added another eight cell Mk41 that can be quad packed with ESSM (32 Missiles). If it used two MK31 launchers for that weapons system it would carry 64 of them leaving sixteen MK41 cells for other weapons. It also carries eight AShMs in canisters, Harpoon on the model but these could be something different on entry into service like the NSM.
Of the T-26 users, we are going to be operating the lowest standard of "Hard", defence and offence. As has repeatedly been suggested, if we installed either two standard or self defence length eight cell Mk41 launcher instead of the amidships "Mushrooms", or used six standalone three cell ExLS. both quad packed with Sea Ceptor our T-26 would have between 64 and 72 missile here alone, allowing four "Strike" length eight cell Mk41 launcher to be installed up front as well as removing the "Mushrooms ", there. That give the T-26 32 Mk41 cells to use as the RN sees fit in addition to an at least 50% increase in SAM capability. This is something I truely wish the MoD would look at for the remaining five T-26 to still be ordered in Batch 2.
With this our B2 T-26 would go from bottom to top of the T-26 effectiveness table if the right weapon system are chosen for the forward installed Mk41s. Imaging 16 each of TLAM and FC/ASW being carried as well as 72 Sea Ceptor!
Of the T-26 users, we are going to be operating the lowest standard of "Hard", defence and offence. As has repeatedly been suggested, if we installed either two standard or self defence length eight cell Mk41 launcher instead of the amidships "Mushrooms", or used six standalone three cell ExLS. both quad packed with Sea Ceptor our T-26 would have between 64 and 72 missile here alone, allowing four "Strike" length eight cell Mk41 launcher to be installed up front as well as removing the "Mushrooms ", there. That give the T-26 32 Mk41 cells to use as the RN sees fit in addition to an at least 50% increase in SAM capability. This is something I truely wish the MoD would look at for the remaining five T-26 to still be ordered in Batch 2.
With this our B2 T-26 would go from bottom to top of the T-26 effectiveness table if the right weapon system are chosen for the forward installed Mk41s. Imaging 16 each of TLAM and FC/ASW being carried as well as 72 Sea Ceptor!
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Sorry to ask but are the Sea Ceptor in the " Mushroom" farm have any angle on their VLS launch systems. I am asking because that was the excuse that the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) came up with for not buying the CAMM-ER because for safety reasons it's wasn't compatible with the Sylver VLS for the new European Corvette Program. Yours opinion are welcome????
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
To date, ALL mushroom tubes are inclined.
T23
RNZN ANZAC frigate
6-cell mushroom model for T26 and Italian escorts
Very interesting info. Thanks!that was the excuse that the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) came up with for not buying the CAMM-ER because for safety reasons it's wasn't compatible with the Sylver VLS for the new European Corvette Program.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
How does that affect the possibility of quad packing?donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 00:04Very interesting info. Thanks!that was the excuse that the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) came up with for not buying the CAMM-ER because for safety reasons it's wasn't compatible with the Sylver VLS for the new European Corvette Program.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
That was the problem thay meaning the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) came up for not finance more the CAMM-ER it was impossible to quad pack in the Sylver VLS maximum that can fit was 2 CAMM-ER but the suspension is that the Marina Militare is very happy with the Aster 15/30 combination and don't want to finance a second line of missile systems. Your thoughts???
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Ukrainians claimed the targeting coordinates for the Neptune anti-ship missiles that sank the Moskva were provided by their TB2 drone. If true T26 needs longer range missiles than just 72 of the short range Sea Ceptor to be able take out drones and aircraft at longer range
PS Reported Moskva was Blind to Ukrainian Missile Attack, Analysis Shows, its forty year old radars inoperative?, sounds highly probable.
https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warshi ... ysis-shows
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
The blind spot on the Slava class Cruiser has been know for quite a while. It was considers to be "Half" a Kirov as its main air defence radar only covers the rear half, maybe slightly more, and so it could not use its main air defence missile systems against attacks from the front arc.
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralev ... 10235/pdf/
Recent evidence from Sir John Parker on the refreshed shipbuilding strategy
There's an interesting titbit about the slow build of T26, apparantly being built outside is causing the welds to deform because of the temperature changes .
Recent evidence from Sir John Parker on the refreshed shipbuilding strategy
There's an interesting titbit about the slow build of T26, apparantly being built outside is causing the welds to deform because of the temperature changes .
- These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 6):
- Poiuytrewq • donald_of_tokyo • Jensy • Lord Jim • jonas • S M H
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
And this has become a problem now because?
Sound like excuses to me, they have been building ships on the slipways in Glasgow and welding them for decades (maybe nearly 80 years) and now it has become a problem.
Sound like excuses to me, they have been building ships on the slipways in Glasgow and welding them for decades (maybe nearly 80 years) and now it has become a problem.
- These users liked the author Jdam for the post (total 4):
- donald_of_tokyo • tomuk • SD67 • serge750
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
The wallet of Europe's largest defence contractor can't stretch to a shed... but sustains two yards on the same stretch of river.SD67 wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 18:52 https://committees.parliament.uk/oralev ... 10235/pdf/
Recent evidence from Sir John Parker on the refreshed shipbuilding strategy
There's an interesting titbit about the slow build of T26, apparantly being built outside is causing the welds to deform because of the temperature changes .
Honestly ridiculous considering what was bulldozed not so long ago.
- These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 2):
- Poiuytrewq • SD67
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Looing at the T-26 and the number of VLS it carries , it is interesting to compare things to the US Navy, whose total combat power is partly being measured by the number of VLS a given task force has available before looking at what weapon systems are housed in them. The DD(X) programme is looking to increase the number of VLS cells each ship has to a number greater then the current Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga classes.
The current planned ships for the RN including the T-26 have far fewer VLS cells installed than could be on the ships of their size. 24 on the T-26 is not enough. In theory a load out could be eight of each of the following weapons, FC/ASW, TLAM and a VL-ASROC type weapon. The latter is important as although the T-26 is touted as the worlds best ASW platform, its ability to prosecute a submerged target is limited to its helicopter and any weapon installed in a number of VLS Cells.
At present the T-31 has no VLS and we can only guess what the T-32 may have though one can assume the number t be equal to or less than the T-26. WE have the T-45 but it has the Sylver VLS installed which may be able to use FC?ASW in addition to its Aster-30 but has less flexibility than the K41 that will be installed on other ships. Yes Sea Ceptor is being installed on both current and planned warships but this is a point defence system really, though a very good one.
The USN Constellation Class FF(X) only has 32 Mk-41 VLS cells but it also carries 16 canister launchers NSM as well as ASW Torpedoes. This is very similar to the T-26 designs that are to be built for the Canadian and Australian Navies.
To sum up, we have to increase the offensive capabilities of our fleet. The number of VLS on the T-26 needs to be increased t oat least 32 which needs to be matched by the T-32 with the T-31 being fitted with 16 VLS Cells. The world has changed and we need to be able to face the challenges that are now present and the ones that may appear in the mid to long term. To close the gap in VLS numbers the T-83 must have at least the same number of VLS as the USN's planned DD(X). The number and type of weapon systems that will be compatible with the Mk-41 will continue to grow as will the capabilities of said systems. We must not be left behind if we are to remain competitive and combat effective in the future.
The current planned ships for the RN including the T-26 have far fewer VLS cells installed than could be on the ships of their size. 24 on the T-26 is not enough. In theory a load out could be eight of each of the following weapons, FC/ASW, TLAM and a VL-ASROC type weapon. The latter is important as although the T-26 is touted as the worlds best ASW platform, its ability to prosecute a submerged target is limited to its helicopter and any weapon installed in a number of VLS Cells.
At present the T-31 has no VLS and we can only guess what the T-32 may have though one can assume the number t be equal to or less than the T-26. WE have the T-45 but it has the Sylver VLS installed which may be able to use FC?ASW in addition to its Aster-30 but has less flexibility than the K41 that will be installed on other ships. Yes Sea Ceptor is being installed on both current and planned warships but this is a point defence system really, though a very good one.
The USN Constellation Class FF(X) only has 32 Mk-41 VLS cells but it also carries 16 canister launchers NSM as well as ASW Torpedoes. This is very similar to the T-26 designs that are to be built for the Canadian and Australian Navies.
To sum up, we have to increase the offensive capabilities of our fleet. The number of VLS on the T-26 needs to be increased t oat least 32 which needs to be matched by the T-32 with the T-31 being fitted with 16 VLS Cells. The world has changed and we need to be able to face the challenges that are now present and the ones that may appear in the mid to long term. To close the gap in VLS numbers the T-83 must have at least the same number of VLS as the USN's planned DD(X). The number and type of weapon systems that will be compatible with the Mk-41 will continue to grow as will the capabilities of said systems. We must not be left behind if we are to remain competitive and combat effective in the future.
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
- Dobbo • wargame_insomniac
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Considering we have no weapons for the MK41 at this moment in time increasing the amount of them doesn't really seem necessary.
Rather than the amount of cell the question is what do we want these ships to do? We need then to hunt subs, defend itself from sea/air threats and contribute to the air defence of the fleet. 48 Sea Ceptors should allow it to defend itself from air targets and help defend the fleet from air targets, anything else you might need a better radar. 24 cells for LRASM/Tomahawk/something should be enough.
Now the lack of cells on the type 45 is worrying but that is for a different thread
Rather than the amount of cell the question is what do we want these ships to do? We need then to hunt subs, defend itself from sea/air threats and contribute to the air defence of the fleet. 48 Sea Ceptors should allow it to defend itself from air targets and help defend the fleet from air targets, anything else you might need a better radar. 24 cells for LRASM/Tomahawk/something should be enough.
Now the lack of cells on the type 45 is worrying but that is for a different thread
-
- Member
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
No.
It's dated, short ranged and carrys an inferior torpedo as its payload.
We could get the MBDA MILAS...its canister launched, so frees up VL space, has twice the range of VL-ASROC and MBDA would quite happily stick the Stingray on the front of it (remember we already own those torpedoes as well..., so far cheaper).
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/milas/
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Under the impression the relatively short range, ~10 mile VLASROC near obsolete?, did see mention of USN "Mk41 VLS supports VLA all wx stand off ASW weapon (future)" have seen no mention of USN funding the programme.
India developing its SMART missile. Supersonic Missile Assisted Release of Torpedo, long range, max ~400 mile, test last December in which it was successful in deploying its LWT, presuming targeting with info from ships long range passive towed array sonar or equivalent USN Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_(missile)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Just hope they build it big enough to cope with T83.....
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/frigate ... the-clyde/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/frigate ... the-clyde/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
At least, the proposed extended hall is longer than 200 m. T83 will not be longer than 200 m, so although depending on the internal arrangement, the hall will be able to handle T83 there.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑20 May 2022, 22:00 Just hope they build it big enough to cope with T83.....
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/frigate ... the-clyde/
By the way, I simply think the hall extension is aiming at the "5 more T26" to be built.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
I suspect T83 won’t be a million miles off 200m (by comparison the Maya class in Japan are almost 170m, the Sejong the great in Korea are around 165m and the T45 are over 150m) so hopefully they are wide enough to build 2/3 at once (hopefully a proper order of 8-12 is made).
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
T26 big problems with weld deformation
UKDJ have picked up testimony given by Ian Waddell, General Secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to the Defence Committee
“To answer your specific question, I was up on the Clyde a couple of months ago, being shown around the ship, and I was shown the problems they had with weld deformation. If you think about the steel at the base of the ship compared with the steel at the top of the ship and the difference in gauge of that, it is an extremely complex structure. They have a big problem with the welds deforming, because of changes in temperature and the climate. They are building it outside, in Glasgow, so it is not a great surprise, to be honest."
"because of changes in temperature and the climate" sounds unbelievable to me, just hoping it will not cost hundreds of millions to rectify.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/frigate ... the-clyde/
UKDJ have picked up testimony given by Ian Waddell, General Secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to the Defence Committee
“To answer your specific question, I was up on the Clyde a couple of months ago, being shown around the ship, and I was shown the problems they had with weld deformation. If you think about the steel at the base of the ship compared with the steel at the top of the ship and the difference in gauge of that, it is an extremely complex structure. They have a big problem with the welds deforming, because of changes in temperature and the climate. They are building it outside, in Glasgow, so it is not a great surprise, to be honest."
"because of changes in temperature and the climate" sounds unbelievable to me, just hoping it will not cost hundreds of millions to rectify.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/frigate ... the-clyde/
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Making up a story to try and make it easier for the above me thinks.
- imperialman
- Donator
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
- Contact:
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
please remove
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- These users liked the author imperialman for the post (total 3):
- donald_of_tokyo • serge750 • SD67
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Aren't these the same muppets who buggered up the River B2's...gluing on bolts etc....
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Remember seeing TV programme on QNLZ trials, full speed and started to flood, the muppets had their structural calcs wrong, sorted by welding additional bracket to prop shaft support Had assumed with the very powerful computer software programmes they use today any structual problems near impossible if inputting correct numbers or is that too simplistic view.Timmymagic wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 11:49Aren't these the same muppets who buggered up the River B2's...gluing on bolts etc....
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
Can everybody calm down it is complete nonsense based on a bit of gossip from a union official who wouldn't know a deck plate if he tripped over it. Of course it would be nice, and cheaper, to build the T26 in a covered hall but hundreds of ships are built all over the world outside.
Here is on of the Tides under construction
Here is on of the Tides under construction