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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

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

Post by Zeno »

I don't believe that it is correct that Ceafar , radar is based on Northrop Grumman technologies N.G is a minor partner with Ceafar
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... sor-system
https://cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2006-0005.pdf
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/aust ... perational
These users liked the author Zeno for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Zeno wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 10:40 I don't believe that it is correct that Ceafar , radar is based on Northrop Grumman technologies N.G is a minor partner with Ceafar
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... sor-system
https://cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2006-0005.pdf
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/aust ... perational
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... rtnerships

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 12:11
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

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

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 15:22
NickC wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 12:11
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.
CEAFAR technology has been under development by CEA since very early this century, and dates back to before project SEA 1448 Phase 2 which commenced in 2003.
These users liked the author SouthernOne for the post:
tomuk

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 15:22
NickC wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 12:11
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.
Although what I said about the two press releases is correct I believe an apology is in order. Northrop Grumman actually own 49% of CEA Technologies.

Australia Defence Magazine April 2012 Interview with then CEA Tech CEO Rob Forbes
ADM: Northrop Grumman owns a 49 percent of CEA. What does that mean for the Australian SME?
Forbes: In our case as the SME on a day to day basis, not a lot because they have taken a relatively hands off approach to the operations of the company. In a strategic sense and exploiting CEA's technology, it's more about potential, which is still to be realised between the two companies as we've needed to develop the relationship and work out how we should be working together. That said we're jointly pursuing a number of significant international opportunities so the relationship is opening up new doors for us as a business.
The only official confirmation of the relationship is a press release from 2006 where is states that NG will take on a 'minority holding'.
CEA Technologies is pleased to announce that on the 10th of March they signed a strategic agreement
with Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman has also acquired a minority shareholding in
CEA Technologies. This allows long-term investors, Deutsche Asset Management and the Canberra based Goodwin & Kenyon Group to sell their shareholding in CEA.
The lack of openness about the shareholding is to my mind not sporting and I assume the reality is kept close to their chest as to not reduce CEA's 'Aussieness'.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

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

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 23 Feb 2023, 03:35
tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 15:22
NickC wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 12:11
You may well be correct, but there is some connection between two companies
You said that CEAFAR is based on Northrop Grumman technology and then provide links to two press releases which provide no evidence of such a thing.

The first press release details a demo of CEAFAR set up in the states by NG and CEAFAR to tout for US sales. In this case NG are for want of a better word the "sales agent" for CEAFAR in the US. This isn't unusual smaller defence companies who don't have an onshore presence partner up with bigger US defence firms all the time.

The second press release details contracts let by NG to local Australian producers for the supply of services and materials to the Australia Defence Materiel Organisation. This is just the normal offsetting to the local supply chain contractors do to win contracts. A current example is the potential for Rheinmetall to supply F35 fuselage sections as an offset by LM for Germany to buy F35.

Neither example show any 'connection' and definitely no evidence the NG technology is in the CEAFAR radar.
Although what I said about the two press releases is correct I believe an apology is in order. Northrop Grumman actually own 49% of CEA Technologies.

Australia Defence Magazine April 2012 Interview with then CEA Tech CEO Rob Forbes
ADM: Northrop Grumman owns a 49 percent of CEA. What does that mean for the Australian SME?
Forbes: In our case as the SME on a day to day basis, not a lot because they have taken a relatively hands off approach to the operations of the company. In a strategic sense and exploiting CEA's technology, it's more about potential, which is still to be realised between the two companies as we've needed to develop the relationship and work out how we should be working together. That said we're jointly pursuing a number of significant international opportunities so the relationship is opening up new doors for us as a business.
The only official confirmation of the relationship is a press release from 2006 where is states that NG will take on a 'minority holding'.
CEA Technologies is pleased to announce that on the 10th of March they signed a strategic agreement
with Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman has also acquired a minority shareholding in
CEA Technologies. This allows long-term investors, Deutsche Asset Management and the Canberra based Goodwin & Kenyon Group to sell their shareholding in CEA.
The lack of openness about the shareholding is to my mind not sporting and I assume the reality is kept close to their chest as to not reduce CEA's 'Aussieness'.
A lot of large tech based companies build their IP portfolio through acquisitions. The software industry is a prime example.

I wouldn’t be surprised if NG wanted a larger stake, but that could face resistance from certain key stakeholders.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Sorry folks, this topic is meant to be focused on the Royal Navy Type 26. Feel free to discuss the Australian and Canadian variants in these topics:
viewtopic.php?t=19 (Australia)
viewtopic.php?t=63 (Canada)
These users liked the author The Armchair Soldier for the post (total 5):
bobpwargame_insomniacSKBScimitar54donald_of_tokyo

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

MoD placed $219 million/~£111 million contract with BAE Systems Inc for T26 Batch 2 main guns, Mk45 5", Maritime Indirect Fire System

"The award follows an initial contract awarded in July 2016 for GBP183 million (USD240.3 million) for three MIFS systems to equip the three Batch 1 Type 26 frigates. The contract included one trainer system. The Batch 1 guns were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings incorporating newbuild ordnance elements.
BAE Systems' MIFS combines the five-inch 62 calibre Mk 45 Mod 4A naval gun system with a fully automated ammunition handling system (AHS), a gun fire-control system, and qualified ammunition"

Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new. Also to note the contract placed by MoD not BAE so assuming additional cost over and above the main Batch 2 £4.2 contract, have seen no recent figures for either Batch 1 or 2 T26 GFE costs funded directly by MoD, think remember seeing a figure of approx £300 million for Batch 1.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 6-frigates

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

NickC wrote: 02 Mar 2023, 11:59 MoD placed $219 million/~£111 million contract with BAE Systems Inc for T26 Batch 2 main guns, Mk45 5", Maritime Indirect Fire System

"The award follows an initial contract awarded in July 2016 for GBP183 million (USD240.3 million) for three MIFS systems to equip the three Batch 1 Type 26 frigates. The contract included one trainer system. The Batch 1 guns were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings incorporating newbuild ordnance elements.
BAE Systems' MIFS combines the five-inch 62 calibre Mk 45 Mod 4A naval gun system with a fully automated ammunition handling system (AHS), a gun fire-control system, and qualified ammunition"

Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new. Also to note the contract placed by MoD not BAE so assuming additional cost over and above the main Batch 2 £4.2 contract, have seen no recent figures for either Batch 1 or 2 T26 GFE costs funded directly by MoD, think remember seeing a figure of approx £300 million for Batch 1.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 6-frigates
Apologies need to correct figures $219 million should be approx £183 million not £111 million and Batch 2 contract £4.2 billion not £4.2 :angel:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 02 Mar 2023, 11:59 Didn't know the Batch 1 contract were reconditioned and upgraded Mk 45 Mod 2 mountings, had assumed new.
AFAIK no new mk 45's have been made for decades. All supplied are refurbished. Same for Phalanx..

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

Seen these on Gabrieles twitter.



Possible welding together the 2 sections later on this year? It will be interesting to see if they can keep to this timetable.



You cant see much but its the best we had on Glasgow since she was moved into the dry dock for fitting out.
These users liked the author Jdam for the post (total 3):
Ron5donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.
These users liked the author bobp for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

bobp wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:52 Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.
They did this 'inside' before this isn't the joining of the fore and aft halves but the joining of the stern to the aft hangar section. Once joined this will be manoeuvred out onto the hard standing to join the forward half.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

tomuk wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 23:03
bobp wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:52 Still picture of above

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvBO5rTXYAE ... name=large


So this time they seem to be joining the two sections indoors.
They did this 'inside' before this isn't the joining of the fore and aft halves but the joining of the stern to the aft hangar section. Once joined this will be manoeuvred out onto the hard standing to join the forward half.
Sorry I forgot that bit, it has been a while. :problem:

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

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

Post by Digger22 »

It would be interesting to know the paint temp tolerance for applying the paint. I'm sure they will need mild weather for a sustained period to start painting the hull. Now the flight deck is in position, I don't think the shed door will close. So early Summer before roll out?

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by imperialman »

Progress.
dji_fly_20230329_095702_173_1680080419942_photo_optimized.jpg
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):
serge750bobpRon5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

That was surprisingly quick.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Historic mistakes usually are!
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Jensy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 19:52 Historic mistakes usually are!
Why is it a mistake? Probably pays for itself very quickly.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 19:38 That was surprisingly quick.
No "help" from the MoD or Treasury.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Digger22

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by imperialman »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 18:45 A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!
The desire was to get this done as quickly as possible.
These users liked the author imperialman for the post:
serge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 18:45 A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!
Dry dock is more expensive, up front and in ongoing maintenance and less practical as you need big craneage to lower the blocks into the dock and you have the issue of the flooding up effecting the other ship in the dock. All these things are a lot easier with SMPT and a barge launch.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
Ron5serge750

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 02:59
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 18:45 A mistake because it should have been built over the basin (as a dry dock)!
Dry dock is more expensive, up front and in ongoing maintenance and less practical as you need big craneage to lower the blocks into the dock and you have the issue of the flooding up effecting the other ship in the dock. All these things are a lot easier with SMPT and a barge launch.
In other words, a dry dock would put up the costs for no additional value.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

But increased capacity!

Post Reply