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
158
54%
Kongsberg NSM
65
22%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
43
15%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
19
6%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 293

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Re VAdm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support in a wide ranging interview two weeks ago, his thoughts in particular on the T26

"T26 very, very complex, necessarily so for high end ASW, densely engineered, very, very expensive but wasn't something that could be afforded and sustained to deliver for the long term. The decision to cut buy from 13 to 8 was based on genuine operational analysis not cost and that the requirement for was for 8 not 13 and no reason to pay £1 billion for GP frigates."

My take on his thinking is that after the eight T26s that will be it, ship too expensive to build in long term, not unexpected, so won't be the basis of a future T83 (on the T83 made the enigmatic comment " Type 83 will not look anything like a T45" which i don't understand, no idea of his thinking, what is an alternative to current type of AAW destroyer ship design eg T45/Burke/Type 055, maybe thinking of USVs which seem improbable?)

The other comment that surprised me was the cut from 13 to 8 T26s was justified by the assessment of the "genuine (ASW)operational needs" and not the massive overspend, the threat from the new gen quiet subs is increasing year by year so can only think the RN ASW operational need very, very limited?


dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Are they thinking that autonomous off-board systems are going to be more important, and much more numerous, than quite hulls?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

After years of wrangling over the Type 26 contract, it was actually Bae that suggested peeling off the requirement for the 5 GP versions into a new class to get negotiations moving.

The 8 ASW versions were justified by showing that the current 8 were busy doing important stuff so needed to be replaced one for one. You can call that operational analysis if you want but arguing with the Treasury starts with, "how many you got now? the new ships will be twice as capable so you only need half that number". The same logic that Broon used to cut 12 T42's to 6 type 45's.

As for the Type 83 won't look anything like a Type 45 comment. That's effing obvious. It won't look like a type 26 either.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:"T26 very, very complex, necessarily so for high end ASW, densely engineered, very, very expensive but wasn't something that could be afforded and sustained to deliver for the long term. The decision to cut buy from 13 to 8 was based on genuine operational analysis not cost and that the requirement for was for 8 not 13 and no reason to pay £1 billion for GP frigates."

My take on his thinking is that after the eight T26s that will be it, ship too expensive to build in long term, not unexpected, so won't be the basis of a future T83 (on the T83 made the enigmatic comment " Type 83 will not look anything like a T45" which i don't understand, no idea of his thinking, what is an alternative to current type of AAW destroyer ship design eg T45/Burke/Type 055, maybe thinking of USVs which seem improbable?)
Thanks for linking this movie.

To replace the "5 T23-GP's role", they selected T31 from operational point of view, as they say. In other words, RN judged that "a GP frigate do not need ASW, nor ASM, nor NGFS". Interesting. It is meaning that, T23GP was actually soooo low-level of military tasks, so that T31 as is now (with limited armaments) is appropriate. If so, using a full-fat 1st-tier escort on such tasks is a huge waste of money. Better buy more F35B, P-8A, or P-7 with it.

But, in short, it was clearly defined by the cost. I understand he clearly stated so. I understand the original "T26GP" idea was to up-arm them in short (say, 1-2 years) notice to increase the number of ASW assets when the "weather gets bad". Cost did not allowed RN to afford that risk hedge.
The other comment that surprised me was the cut from 13 to 8 T26s was justified by the assessment of the "genuine (ASW)operational needs" and not the massive overspend, the threat from the new gen quiet subs is increasing year by year so can only think the RN ASW operational need very, very limited?
I understand your point, but you are talking about the "change" in the international conditions, not on the 2016 decision for introducing 5 T31.

But, it also means the decision can also change in a few years.

Admiral also stated that the future escorts will be more relying on autonomous systems. Here comes the T32 concept. If so, I pretty much hope BAES starts its designing for T32. I wanna see how their design team will figure it out.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:After years of wrangling over the Type 26 contract, it was actually Bae that suggested peeling off the requirement for the 5 GP versions into a new class to get negotiations moving.
Interesting do you have any links to evidence of that.
but arguing with the Treasury starts with, "how many you got now? the new ships will be twice as capable so you only need half that number". The same logic that Broon used to cut 12 T42's to 6 type 45's.
The reason the T45s were cut was down to cost, the price as always had skyrocketed, that was even after simplifying the build program from the original Portsmouth/Clyde dual assembly.

The capability argument was the one used to publicly justify the cut but in the case of T45/T42 was actually very true because the T42 was unfortunately absolute rubbish at AAW. On introduction the radar was poor and by the time that was improved the missiles were outdated.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

tomuk wrote:The capability argument was the one used to publicly justify the cut but in the case of T45/T42 was actually very true because the T42 was unfortunately absolute rubbish at AAW. On introduction the radar was poor and by the time that was improved the missiles were outdated.
Joint Doctrine Doc (why was the definitive version taking like a decade :?: ) said that the lack of carrier cover could be substituted for by the T45radar being effective over land as well - for its effective range over (the rather flat) sea??
- so the same for carrier air/T45 as for T45/ many more T42
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Image

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

He should also go for a visit to the Astute assembly hall, in Barrow, while he's here.. ;)

That will wind Macron up, no end :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Admiral also stated that the future escorts will be more relying on autonomous systems. Here comes the T32 concept. If so, I pretty much hope BAES starts its designing for T32. I wanna see how their design team will figure it out.
As long as the Treasury doesn't pull an unrealistic price cap out of its ass like it did with the T31s.

Which they will.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:Interesting do you have any links to evidence of that.
More than one person close to the program has said that, including not a boffin.
tomuk wrote:The reason the T45s were cut was down to cost, the price as always had skyrocketed, that was even after simplifying the build program from the original Portsmouth/Clyde dual assembly.

The capability argument was the one used to publicly justify the cut but in the case of T45/T42 was actually very true because the T42 was unfortunately absolute rubbish at AAW. On introduction the radar was poor and by the time that was improved the missiles were outdated.
I said Broon in my comment meaning the combination of Hoon & Brown. Hoon gets most peoples credit for the "its twice as capable as the outgoing so we only need half as many" line that he applied to many programs.

Glad you think 6 type 45's are adequate :?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
tomuk wrote:The capability argument was the one used to publicly justify the cut but in the case of T45/T42 was actually very true because the T42 was unfortunately absolute rubbish at AAW. On introduction the radar was poor and by the time that was improved the missiles were outdated.
Joint Doctrine Doc (why was the definitive version taking like a decade :?: ) said that the lack of carrier cover could be substituted for by the T45radar being effective over land as well - for its effective range over (the rather flat) sea??
- so the same for carrier air/T45 as for T45/ many more T42
Indeed that was a classic argument - don't need carriers because we have type 45's. Thanks to the idiot British MP's he got away with repeating that crap in parliament.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Cooper wrote:He should also go for a visit to the Astute assembly hall, in Barrow, while he's here.. ;)

That will wind Macron up, no end :D
Bet he was invited :D

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Thanks for linking this movie. // But, it also means the decision can also change in a few years. // Admiral also stated that the future escorts will be more relying on autonomous systems. Here comes the T32 concept. If so, I pretty much hope BAES starts its designing for T32. I wanna see how their design team will figure it out.
Would note it was not me who found this video, it was another poster whose name didn't note, apologies.

Also agree with your point that things can change in few years, think autonomous systems hold a lot of promise but as yet totally unproven, Google / Waymo reputed to be one of the best software companies in the world have spent $billions on self driving cars since 2009 and yet to see production model available to buy, so colour me skeptical at the moment, especially as military systems will not operate in a benign civil environment but will be subject to enemy jamming/spoofing of their comms and targeting info etc. Just hope the RN mind set don't get
carried away with the current hype until R&D systems tested and proved under realistic conditions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:Google / Waymo reputed to be one of the best software companies in the world have spent $billions on self driving cars since 2009 and yet to see production model available
Apple also got some old airbase, for their skunkworks to the same end... with the same result.
- just proves the point (about everyone jumping on the new tech bandwagon, without 'proper' tipping-of-the-toe first)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:Interesting do you have any links to evidence of that.
More than one person close to the program has said that, including not a boffin.
tomuk wrote:The reason the T45s were cut was down to cost, the price as always had skyrocketed, that was even after simplifying the build program from the original Portsmouth/Clyde dual assembly.

The capability argument was the one used to publicly justify the cut but in the case of T45/T42 was actually very true because the T42 was unfortunately absolute rubbish at AAW. On introduction the radar was poor and by the time that was improved the missiles were outdated.
I said Broon in my comment meaning the combination of Hoon & Brown. Hoon gets most peoples credit for the "its twice as capable as the outgoing so we only need half as many" line that he applied to many programs.

Glad you think 6 type 45's are adequate :?
Where did I say six was adequate? It was just explaining/setting out the justification used by Ministers at the time. However I definitely would want 6 x T45 rather then 12x or even 18x T42.


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Glasgow, F88


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

From 10th September 2021:
SKB wrote:The three Type 26 frigates currently under construction have been issued with pennant numbers.

1. HMS Glasgow (F88) - F88 was previously used by T22 HMS Broadsword between 1979-1995 (sold to Brazil as Greenhalgh, decommissioned 10th August 2021)
The previous HMS Glasgow, a T42 destroyer, used the D88 pennant.

2. HMS Cardiff (F89) - F89 was previously used by T22 HMS Battleaxe between 1980-1996 (sold to Brazil as Rademaker)
3. HMS Belfast (F90) - F90 was previously used by T22 HMS Brilliant between 1981-1996 (sold to Brazil as Dodsworth, scrapped 2012)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate

The youngest of the T23 (HMS St Albans) was issued with F83.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2328
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

At last some sense......


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Part of their T26 Batch 2 proposal?

George's animation shows all 3 sheds extended so that three ships could be built at once. Good grief, Geo Osbourne must be rolling over in his (political) grave.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2328
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:Part of their T26 Batch 2 proposal?
And possible work on the Canadian and Australian orders maybe.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Or simply upgrading the yard for future work, that could then be done more efficiently, possibly a lesson learnt from T-26. It could also mean the the whole ship will be built on only one site, not having individual blocks built elsewhere and moved to Govan for assembly.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

All T26 blocks are built at Govan

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2328
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

New Pictures .....




Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

tomuk wrote:All T26 blocks are built at Govan
I didn't realize that, thanks for the info.

Post Reply