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

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

WhitestElephant wrote:
jonas wrote:
birrell715 wrote:Bae now keeping both Clyde yards open
Further to your post here with link:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-32828517

Am I being too cynical, because it looks to me like BAE have just cut their investment on Clydeside by £100m :?
I think it is a rather optimistic development. The £200m 'frigate factory' was a consolidation move, and generally, consolidation in the naval ship building industry has been the result of reduced expectations of orders.

Keeping both yards open becomes more expensive very quickly than the extra £100m capital investment into just one yard. Could this perhaps be because the MoD is giving them the right signals about T26 orders? Or do they expect export builds?
As far as T26 orders for the UK are concerned I think thats a given. In the case of export orders I think it's more a case of hope rather than expect. In fact are they even showcasing the T26 at the current IMDEX ASIA 2015, as I can't find any mention of it. These are the sort of places BAE have to be at the forefront of if they wish to compete in todays market.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

WhitestElephant wrote:
I think it is a rather optimistic development. The £200m 'frigate factory' was a consolidation move, and generally, consolidation in the naval ship building industry has been the result of reduced expectations of orders.

Keeping both yards open becomes more expensive very quickly than the extra £100m capital investment into just one yard. Could this perhaps be because the MoD is giving them the right signals about T26 orders? Or do they expect export builds?

More likely, it is simply politically unthinkable to close Govan while SNP has had a major success in the elections.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Gabriele wrote:
WhitestElephant wrote:
I think it is a rather optimistic development. The £200m 'frigate factory' was a consolidation move, and generally, consolidation in the naval ship building industry has been the result of reduced expectations of orders.

Keeping both yards open becomes more expensive very quickly than the extra £100m capital investment into just one yard. Could this perhaps be because the MoD is giving them the right signals about T26 orders? Or do they expect export builds?

More likely, it is simply politically unthinkable to close Govan while SNP has had a major success in the elections.
Gabriele, funny you should say that :-

"SNP welcome BAE commitment to Glasgow shipyards
Thu, 21/05/2015 - 13:35



The SNP has today welcomed the news that BAE Systems has confirmed that it is to retain both Govan and Scotstoun shipyards in Glasgow, following a review of its operations.

In a joint statement Chris Stephens, MP for Glasgow South West and Carol Monaghan, MP for Glasgow North West said:

“We met with BAE today and are delighted by their decision to keep both the Govan and Scotstoun yards open. The yards will continue to work together to build the next generation of Royal Navy Warships.

“The building of the Type 26 Frigates offers long term job security and will be welcomed by workers on both sites. This decision by BAE is a testament to the abilities of the highly skilled workforces and it is important that we recognise the world-leading expertise that we have here on the Clyde. We look forward to working closely with BAE in the future.”

Bill Kidd, SNP MSP for the Scotstoun shipyard, said:

“The fact is that the expertise and experience of our workforce mean Scottish shipyards are the best place to build the next generation of ships – so there cannot not be any more threats from Westminster about the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde.”
Filed under:

shipbuilding Economy and Jobs SNP

User avatar
wirralpete
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:16
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by wirralpete »

@Gabriel...
Or do they want to compete for the mars ss ship contract and Argus replacement along the lines of the Aircraft carrier alliance with BMT and Babcock ? Remember they abd Babcock didnt have the capacity to bid for and build the Tide class because of lack of capacity as they are building the QEC class.
Also think the Tides being relatively simple ships they probably couldnt compete ... the marĺs ss and argus replacement will be more complex with a higher chance of a lesser price differrntial between a continuation of the ACA and Daewoo

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Gabriele »

wirralpete wrote:@Gabriel...
Or do they want to compete for the mars ss ship contract and Argus replacement along the lines of the Aircraft carrier alliance with BMT and Babcock ? Remember they abd Babcock didnt have the capacity to bid for and build the Tide class because of lack of capacity as they are building the QEC class.
Also think the Tides being relatively simple ships they probably couldnt compete ... the marĺs ss and argus replacement will be more complex with a higher chance of a lesser price differrntial between a continuation of the ACA and Daewoo
Argus replacement... we don't even know if there will be one, and when, sadly. I've read OSD being suggested as early as 2024, but nothing in the way of actual replacement ideas.

MARS FSS, maybe, but i don't quite think so. And even here, when is that programme going to move on...? I'm hoping with the new SDSR, but i wouldn't bet a single penny on it right now.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

wirralpete wrote:@Gabriel...
Or do they want to compete for the mars ss ship contract and Argus replacement along the lines of the Aircraft carrier alliance with BMT and Babcock ? Remember they abd Babcock didnt have the capacity to bid for and build the Tide class because of lack of capacity as they are building the QEC class.
Also think the Tides being relatively simple ships they probably couldnt compete ... the marĺs ss and argus replacement will be more complex with a higher chance of a lesser price differrntial between a continuation of the ACA and Daewoo
Tide class is double hulled, so has another level of complexity on top. I don't think the UK has ever built something double hulled before thus the Koreans could offer a much better deal.
I would also speculate mars ss and argus replacement will go abroad since they will be too expensive to be built in the UK.

I also cant imagine the news has much to do with the SNP at all. It would signal there is more certainty on the type 26 numbers, and that wouldn't have come from the SNP. The certainty on the type 26 numbers could be taken either way, perhaps they have less income so cant afford to invest as much, or perhaps they have more income so they don't need to make the factories more efficient.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

shark bait wrote:
wirralpete wrote:@Gabriel...
Or do they want to compete for the mars ss ship contract and Argus replacement along the lines of the Aircraft carrier alliance with BMT and Babcock ? Remember they abd Babcock didnt have the capacity to bid for and build the Tide class because of lack of capacity as they are building the QEC class.
Also think the Tides being relatively simple ships they probably couldnt compete ... the marĺs ss and argus replacement will be more complex with a higher chance of a lesser price differrntial between a continuation of the ACA and Daewoo
Tide class is double hulled, so has another level of complexity on top. I don't think the UK has ever built something double hulled before thus the Koreans could offer a much better deal.
The Waves are double-hulled. ;)

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:
WhitestElephant wrote:
I think it is a rather optimistic development. The £200m 'frigate factory' was a consolidation move, and generally, consolidation in the naval ship building industry has been the result of reduced expectations of orders.

Keeping both yards open becomes more expensive very quickly than the extra £100m capital investment into just one yard. Could this perhaps be because the MoD is giving them the right signals about T26 orders? Or do they expect export builds?

More likely, it is simply politically unthinkable to close Govan while SNP has had a major success in the elections.
More likely Bae wants to minimize its investment in Scotland with the SNP threatening another referendum.

Bad news for exports, the current shipyards look like sh*t and 100 mill investment isn't going to change that much and who would want their new ships built in a sh*tty looking yard. Yes, it matters.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote: Bad news for exports, the current shipyards look like sh*t and 100 mill investment isn't going to change that much and who would want their new ships built in a sh*tty looking yard. Yes, it matters.
Non of the 'exports' will be built in Britain. They would be buying the T26 blue prints and presumably the systems, but its almost certain the boats will be built by the customers country.

The Armchair Soldier wrote: The Waves are double-hulled. ;)
So they are, my mistake. Regardless the Koreans appear to be doing a great job on the tide class at much cheaper then any UK yard could ever manage.
BAE Systems wrote:BAE Systems Ship Build Two Site Option - Upgrade to existing facilities in Govan and Scotstoun
@LandSharkUK

Retired
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 14 May 2015, 00:21

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Retired »

With reguard to names for any Type 26 GCS that the RN might eventually get I would suggest that Battle or Weapon names might be used, they would sound more appropiate for ships in the 7000 ton bracket.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Retired wrote:With reguard to names for any Type 26 GCS that the RN might eventually get I would suggest that Battle or Weapon names might be used, they would sound more appropiate for ships in the 7000 ton bracket.
I suggested the 'Battle' class names for T26 some while ago elsewhere, and was told that this would not be politically correct, as it might upset some of our continental friends. Such is the world we now live in.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

naming will be interesting. I think town/city names from all 4 countries of the UK would be a good idea. I know the Type 42's and Last 3 type 22/II used and reused town names. Possibly Counties? if 13 3 from each country of the UK and a random one.

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Jdam »

Type 45 was the D class, Echo class for the E's What about the F for the type 26, Formidable, Fearless and so on. :mrgreen:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Jdam wrote:Type 45 was the D class, Echo class for the E's What about the F for the type 26, Formidable, Fearless and so on. :mrgreen:
Formidable as far as I am aware has always been a 'capital ship' name, likewise 'Fearless' in recent years, although a frigate of that name was in WWII.
I prersonaly would love to see the 'Daring' class names extended, although they were destroyers they were far smaller than the proposed T26, so why not. Of course I suppose names such as 'Dainty' and 'Delight' would not be considered appropriate in this day and age. :(

I'm sure you will forgive me in my dotage, as I do obviously realise the Darings are already at sea, but there are still a lot of the class names left. As they are going to be almost the same size as the current class, why not use them. Sorry for rambling on, but in my current mindset aided by a couple of pints of 'Old Peculiar' it seemed a good idea. :?

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote:

Non of the 'exports' will be built in Britain. They would be buying the T26 blue prints and presumably the systems, but its almost certain the boats will be built by the customers country.

Nope. Far from "certain".

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Ron5 wrote:
shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote:

Non of the 'exports' will be built in Britain. They would be buying the T26 blue prints and presumably the systems, but its almost certain the boats will be built by the customers country.

Nope. Far from "certain".
Disagree, the countries who could either afford, or operate such sophisticated vessels would 'almost certainly' wish to build them in their own yards. For example Canada/Australia have a need, and have made it known that this is the preferred option.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

jonas wrote:
Disagree, the countries who could either afford, or operate such sophisticated vessels would 'almost certainly' wish to build them in their own yards. For example Canada/Australia have a need, and have made it known that this is the preferred option.
Exactly. Australia, Canada, India and Brazil are the prime partners, all of which will definitely want to build their own.

Remember steel is cheap and easy to put together. The design and manufacturer of the systems is the complicated part
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by marktigger »

and each of those nations will want modifications like different propulsion, electronics and weapons fits

Retired
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 14 May 2015, 00:21

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Retired »

jonas wrote:
Retired wrote:With reguard to names for any Type 26 GCS that the RN might eventually get I would suggest that Battle or Weapon names might be used, they would sound more appropiate for ships in the 7000 ton bracket.
I suggested the 'Battle' class names for T26 some while ago elsewhere, and was told that this would not be politically correct, as it might upset some of our continental friends. Such is the world we now live in.

Is political correctness the reason why "Diana" was not chosen for the latest Darings

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Ron5 »

jonas wrote:
Disagree, the countries who could either afford, or operate such sophisticated vessels would 'almost certainly' wish to build them in their own yards. For example Canada/Australia have a need, and have made it known that this is the preferred option.
It's all hypothetical as nothing has been agreed but Australia for one has asked for proposals including UK build so whatever your opinion, it is being considered and has not been rejected out of hand.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Ron5 wrote:
jonas wrote:
Disagree, the countries who could either afford, or operate such sophisticated vessels would 'almost certainly' wish to build them in their own yards. For example Canada/Australia have a need, and have made it known that this is the preferred option.
It's all hypothetical as nothing has been agreed but Australia for one has asked for proposals including UK build so whatever your opinion, it is being considered and has not been rejected out of hand.
I know.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by jonas »

Retired wrote:
jonas wrote:
Retired wrote:With reguard to names for any Type 26 GCS that the RN might eventually get I would suggest that Battle or Weapon names might be used, they would sound more appropiate for ships in the 7000 ton bracket.
I suggested the 'Battle' class names for T26 some while ago elsewhere, and was told that this would not be politically correct, as it might upset some of our continental friends. Such is the world we now live in.

Is political correctness the reason why "Diana" was not chosen for the latest Darings
Possibly,but I would say 'Diane' has about as much chance of re-appearing, as does the 'Gay' class (remember them), ;)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote: It's all hypothetical as nothing has been agreed but Australia for one has asked for proposals including UK build so whatever your opinion, it is being considered and has not been rejected out of hand.
It is hypothetical yes, but what isn't is that military spending has always been about job creations. Look at any government memo about military procurement and it will say something like 'safeguarding 500 jobs and supporting thousands more in supply chain'. You build the ships in another country, no job creation, politicians look bad.

The only reason contracts would go abroad is if its cheaper and, theses no way the UK could build ships significantly cheaper than any other country.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote: It's all hypothetical as nothing has been agreed but Australia for one has asked for proposals including UK build so whatever your opinion, it is being considered and has not been rejected out of hand.
It is hypothetical yes, but what isn't is that military spending has always been about job creations. Look at any government memo about military procurement and it will say something like 'safeguarding 500 jobs and supporting thousands more in supply chain'. You build the ships in another country, no job creation, politicians look bad.

The only reason contracts would go abroad is if its cheaper and, theses no way the UK could build ships significantly cheaper than any other country.
You need to read up on Australian ship building plus economies of scale.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK's Future T26 Frigate.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

What, particularly? There is a juicy report (the gvmnt is not releasing it), but some snippets have come out:

"Under the original contract the first ship was due in service in 2014 and the latest “rebaselining” had the first ship, HMAS Hobart, in navy service in 2016.
Mr Thorne, the general manager of land and maritime with DMO, said the big problem with the project had been low productivity at the ASC shipyard.
“AWD Shipbuilding is running at up to 170 man hours per compensated gross tonne,” he said.
“This compares with core productivity of around 60 man hours per compensated gross tonne which should be possible from an experienced and productive shipyard in the Australian context"

http://www.news.com.au/national/destroy ... 7330086648
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)

Post Reply