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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I think it is fair to say that the global security situation has got more serious since the T26 was initially designed and even the Hunter design adapted. Not just Russia proving that is willing to invade a European neighbour, but also the Chinese talking far more bluntly about reuniting with Taiwan by whatever means necessary. Designs that would have been fine during peacetime dividend now need additional weaponry to still fullfill their tasks.

Both Russia and China have spent a lot of their defence budget researching carrier busting missiles. Therefore whether looking at NATO or Quad navies, they need to be able to deal with a mix of a large number of cheap subsonic missiles together with a (hopefully) smaller number of more expensive hypersonic and/or stealthy missiles. So IMO each naval group (whether carrier, amphibious or just escorts) is going to need some dedicated AAW with great radars and sensors and upwards of 90+ VLS cells to cope with potentially multiple waves of anti-ship missiles.

Does nt mean that ALL escorts have to have 90+VLS cells. But even for ASW dedicated escorts, if there is space to increase the number of VLS cells then IMO it is almost always doing to arm escorts for these more dangerous times. Using an example of 48 VLS cells, a ship can carry a decent mix of a few of each of cruise missiles, anti ship, anti submarine and medium range anti aircraft/missile defence, and some short range AAW, preferably quadpacked.

I am not saying that 48 is a magic number of VLS cells, and I did nt want to get into endless arguments about precise mix of specific types of missiles - just the point that a decent number of VLS cells spread over the different missile types would allow even a frigate to be able to contribute usefully in several tasks.

So my takeaway from the ASPI article was that it would be a good idea if both the T26 and Hunter can increase the number of VLS cells that they are equipped with, idealy during construction but if not at first refit afterwards. IN RN case for the T26 I believe they are thinking of adding MK41 cells to the existing CAMM cells - and I hope they have gone for quad-packed CAMM rather than older mushroom style, but won't know for sure for longer. If they did both then I beleive would be good use of all that space that T26 were initially designed with.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
MercatorR686

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

In Australia's case, the first contract is only for a batch of three vessels, so I can't see why a design solution can't be found for more VLS in the second batch. It should be plenty of time. It also should be an opportunity to reduce weight elsewhere in the design which will also create opportunities.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
R686wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The same could also said to be true for the Royal Navy. So far we have only ordered three T-26s to the original design. If the Navy decided it was happy quad packing Sea Ceptor in Mk41 VLS it would be relatively simple for the second batch of five T-26 to follow the RAN and have 32 32 strike lenghtMk41 VLS (4x8) forwards and still retain the further 24 "Mushroom", Canisters amidships. This would give the ships greater flexibility, by taking this further and I keep suggesting this, the amidships "Mushrooms", could also be replaced by 16 self defence length MK41 VLS cells (2x8), giving each T-26 64 Sea Ceptor Missiles as well as having the 32 Strike Length MK41 VLS forward. All other systems etc. could remain the same.

Just out of interest, the space taken up by the Mission Bay could easily hold 64 standard length Mk41 VLS (8x8), which could hold, VL-ASROC, SM-6 and so on.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

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

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 01:39 Just out of interest, the space taken up by the Mission Bay could easily hold 64 standard length Mk41 VLS (8x8), which could hold, VL-ASROC, SM-6 and so on.
On your point the T26 Mission Bay to be consigned to history and replaced by 64 NK41 VLS cells the question becomes what missiles to be fitted, your suggesstion of SM-6 think need budget of £billion or so, would need much more capable radar/s than Artisan for the long range SM-6 (the Burke SPY-6 radar $236 million) the BAE CMS would have to upgraded and modified to integrate the Lockheed International Aegis Fire Control Loop to control the SM-6 plus cost of the missiles (Korea budgeting $600 million for SM-6s for its three new KDX Aegis destroyers). The T26 might end up as a more capable T45 but with the same costs and problems as with the Hunter, also reflected in the Canadian PBO 2021 estimate for the 15 CSC ships ~ £48 billion.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 01:39 The same could also said to be true for the Royal Navy. So far we have only ordered three T-26s to the original design. If the Navy decided it was happy quad packing Sea Ceptor in Mk41 VLS it would be relatively simple for the second batch of five T-26 to follow the RAN and have 32 32 strike lenghtMk41 VLS (4x8) forwards and still retain the further 24 "Mushroom", Canisters amidships. This would give the ships greater flexibility, by taking this further and I keep suggesting this, the amidships "Mushrooms", could also be replaced by 16 self defence length MK41 VLS cells (2x8), giving each T-26 64 Sea Ceptor Missiles as well as having the 32 Strike Length MK41 VLS forward. All other systems etc. could remain the same.

Just out of interest, the space taken up by the Mission Bay could easily hold 64 standard length Mk41 VLS (8x8), which could hold, VL-ASROC, SM-6 and so on.
This for me is the simple uparming of the T26 that I am personally hoping for. Replace Mushroom CAMM with quadpacked CAMM for decent number of short ranged AAW missiles, and then use Mk 41 VLS to carry a mixture of other missiles, incl ASROC for their primary ASW role.

Hopefully it wouldn't cost too much to make that one small change, especially if decision to make this change made soon before Glasgow even launched.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I was just giving an idea of what may be possible if the number of Mk41 VLS cells becomes a major issue for the various T-26 designs. I must admit that whilst the "Mission Bay" made a great deal of sense when it was being touted as the Global Combat Ship, if we are to use the T-26 mainly as an escort for the carriers, prioritising ASW then the Mission bay becomes less useful, especially if we are going to ask for more bang per hull moving forwards.

Artisan is a very capable radar, it is half a Sampson after all. I suggested the SM-6 for it being the successor to the SM-2, and we wouldn't have to have the planned state of the art version as the more conservative versions are likely to stay in production. Anyhow such a configuration would be slaved to either a T-45 or T-83, acting as a magazine of long range air defence using a CEC set up.

Anyhow all of this is obviously ideas of what could possibly be. One thing I feel strongly about though is the T-26 as is need to be more spiky, and changes could easily be made to achieve this with the second batch of five T-36 for the Royal Navy.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The Mission bay might be useful as RN develop UAV / USV / USuV. Which is why I hope they first replace the mushrooms with more modern VLS to make best use of that space.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 13:12 The Mission bay might be useful as RN develop UAV / USV / USuV. Which is why I hope they first replace the mushrooms with more modern VLS to make best use of that space.
Looking at the 3 variants they should be able to fit up to 48 Mk41s in the forward section alone, if then mid ship mushrooms are replaced with EXcL for CAMM / CAMMER they’d pack a good punch.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

How much room in the bow of teh T)26 would be freed up if we switched from the 5" gun to the 57mm gun as used on the T-31 for the last five ships? the fate of the Moskva shows how vulnerable ships are to shore based AShMs, even when not conducting Gun Fire Support.

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

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

Post by Jdam »

We should know more than most navies how effective shore based AShMs and AShMs in general are against ships unless time has softened our memory to it, I would hope our entire modern fleet has defence and doctrine against it. I would hope that Sea Ceptor and Phalanx could take care of it.

That said maybe when operating in those type of conditions it might require a team up with a type 45 at all times as that really are the ship that would be best to deal with AShMs in my opinion.

Interesting question submarine are undoubtedly the biggest threat to modern ships but the last 40 years have shown that AShMs have taken their toll as well, you now need a balance between what you build, either AA escorts or AWS escorts and where does the type 31 come into that defence mix. :think:

This is the point where all that pre war theory and lets be honest gambles meet reality.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jdam wrote: 02 May 2022, 09:27 where does the type 31 come into that defence mix
The T31 is an easy fix.

Add 16 Mk41 cells and increase CAMM cells to 24. Additional CAMM and even Sea Spear can be added if required with PODS.

Add a high quality hull mounted sonar and Captas 4 compact and RN would have 5 fantastically versatile frigates for a very attractive price.

Simple.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
JohnMwargame_insomniac

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 May 2022, 03:30 How much room in the bow of teh T)26 would be freed up if we switched from the 5" gun to the 57mm gun as used on the T-31 for the last five ships? the fate of the Moskva shows how vulnerable ships are to shore based AShMs, even when not conducting Gun Fire Support.

Fair point - I’m not disputing it but it is important to remember that the Russian forces have on the whole shown themselves to be incompetent, their equipment outdated and poorly maintained, and that is before we think about the Moskva being from the same generation as the type 42 destroyers…

Does support the need for RN ships to have a strong AAW suite (Phalanx and CAAMM should be the minimum for all) and carry a credible arsenal of SSMs…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 May 2022, 10:02
Jdam wrote: 02 May 2022, 09:27 where does the type 31 come into that defence mix
The T31 is an easy fix.

Add 16 Mk41 cells and increase CAMM cells to 24. Additional CAMM and even Sea Spear can be added if required with PODS.

Add a high quality hull mounted sonar and Captas 4 compact and RN would have 5 fantastically versatile frigates for a very attractive price.

Simple.
Not convinced. All these upgrade will require good amount of money. UK shall better spend that money on
- improving the ammo stock
- increasing the spare parts
- improving the logistic support and engineers
- adding T45 BMD
- improving T26 radar,
- adding Sea Ceptor to 2 CVs,
- adding a few more P-8 or several SkyGuardian UAVs with ASW option,
- and adding a few more P-7

Also, all these additions needs more crew, more spare parts, more operational cost. Only after this, uparming T31 will come, for me.

T31 is a GP frigate designed to cover the lower end of the RN escort fleets' tasks. It is lightly armed to decrease crew size and operational cost, and hence increasing the sea going days as much as possible. T31 for me is much more like the "super up-armed River B2" sometimes discussed in the River OPV thread; with frigate standard hull, much improved sea-keeping, helicopter operational capability (up to 2 Wildcats, I guess!), and guns and CAMMs.

With such improvement, up-arming T31 will simply reduce is operational availability, put more tension on other RN fleets crew and logistics, and hence make RN weaker. I want stronger RN.

Not saying it is bad, just saying it is much more near the bottom of the requirements.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 May 2022, 12:59 Not saying it is bad, just saying it is much more near the bottom of the requirements.
I agree with your list Donald but when the UK public is waking up to headlines like this what use are a new class of frigates that can’t find, track and if necessary destroy submarines?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... dioactive/

IMO the T31 as originally envisaged is now not politically sustainable.

Extra T26 may be the answer also but little chance of that in the next 8 to 10 years.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

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

Post by JohnM »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 May 2022, 12:59
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 May 2022, 10:02
Jdam wrote: 02 May 2022, 09:27 where does the type 31 come into that defence mix
The T31 is an easy fix.

Add 16 Mk41 cells and increase CAMM cells to 24. Additional CAMM and even Sea Spear can be added if required with PODS.

Add a high quality hull mounted sonar and Captas 4 compact and RN would have 5 fantastically versatile frigates for a very attractive price.

Simple.
Not convinced. All these upgrade will require good amount of money. UK shall better spend that money on
- improving the ammo stock
- increasing the spare parts
- improving the logistic support and engineers
- adding T45 BMD
- improving T26 radar,
- adding Sea Ceptor to 2 CVs,
- adding a few more P-8 or several SkyGuardian UAVs with ASW option,
- and adding a few more P-7

Also, all these additions needs more crew, more spare parts, more operational cost. Only after this, uparming T31 will come, for me.

T31 is a GP frigate designed to cover the lower end of the RN escort fleets' tasks. It is lightly armed to decrease crew size and operational cost, and hence increasing the sea going days as much as possible. T31 for me is much more like the "super up-armed River B2" sometimes discussed in the River OPV thread; with frigate standard hull, much improved sea-keeping, helicopter operational capability (up to 2 Wildcats, I guess!), and guns and CAMMs.

With such improvement, up-arming T31 will simply reduce is operational availability, put more tension on other RN fleets crew and logistics, and hence make RN weaker. I want stronger RN.

Not saying it is bad, just saying it is much more near the bottom of the requirements.
Your list makes total sense, but doesn't give you more fighting hulls in the water, which in my view is an absolute priority. T31 was idealized at a time the needs and mission scope were completely different (and we agree they are adequate for that) than what they are today; luckily for the RN, they are already in the pipeline and are without a shadow of a doubt, the cheapest and quickest way to increase the number of surface hulls, which I think is priority #1... an update like that Jdam suggests (I would even be content with a basic HMS, like in T45, as I've said before) should not be expensive (maybe GBP 50-80M per ship, which is the cost of one extra ship) and would be very light on extra manning requirements (no more than 10-20 crew per ship). If this were to be done, the RN would then have a great MP frigate that could still be forward deployed during peacetime, but would then be adequate for lower end taskings, like convoy and LRG escort, choke point patrol, FRE and even TAPS, therefore releasing the T26s and T45 for higher end stuff like CSG escort, NATO tasking and North Atlantic ASW. All for 250-400 M GBP and a negligible increase in crewing requirements.
These users liked the author JohnM for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacPoiuytrewq

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

JohnM wrote: 02 May 2022, 16:55
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 May 2022, 12:59
Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 May 2022, 10:02
Jdam wrote: 02 May 2022, 09:27 where does the type 31 come into that defence mix
The T31 is an easy fix.

Add 16 Mk41 cells and increase CAMM cells to 24. Additional CAMM and even Sea Spear can be added if required with PODS.

Add a high quality hull mounted sonar and Captas 4 compact and RN would have 5 fantastically versatile frigates for a very attractive price.

Simple.
Not convinced. All these upgrade will require good amount of money. UK shall better spend that money on
- improving the ammo stock
- increasing the spare parts
- improving the logistic support and engineers
- adding T45 BMD
- improving T26 radar,
- adding Sea Ceptor to 2 CVs,
- adding a few more P-8 or several SkyGuardian UAVs with ASW option,
- and adding a few more P-7

Also, all these additions needs more crew, more spare parts, more operational cost. Only after this, uparming T31 will come, for me.

T31 is a GP frigate designed to cover the lower end of the RN escort fleets' tasks. It is lightly armed to decrease crew size and operational cost, and hence increasing the sea going days as much as possible. T31 for me is much more like the "super up-armed River B2" sometimes discussed in the River OPV thread; with frigate standard hull, much improved sea-keeping, helicopter operational capability (up to 2 Wildcats, I guess!), and guns and CAMMs.

With such improvement, up-arming T31 will simply reduce is operational availability, put more tension on other RN fleets crew and logistics, and hence make RN weaker. I want stronger RN.

Not saying it is bad, just saying it is much more near the bottom of the requirements.
Your list makes total sense, but doesn't give you more fighting hulls in the water, which in my view is an absolute priority. T31 was idealized at a time the needs and mission scope were completely different (and we agree they are adequate for that) than what they are today; luckily for the RN, they are already in the pipeline and are without a shadow of a doubt, the cheapest and quickest way to increase the number of surface hulls, which I think is priority #1... an update like that Jdam suggests (I would even be content with a basic HMS, like in T45, as I've said before) should not be expensive (maybe GBP 50-80M per ship, which is the cost of one extra ship) and would be very light on extra manning requirements (no more than 10-20 crew per ship). If this were to be done, the RN would then have a great MP frigate that could still be forward deployed during peacetime, but would then be adequate for lower end taskings, like convoy and LRG escort, choke point patrol, FRE and even TAPS, therefore releasing the T26s and T45 for higher end stuff like CSG escort, NATO tasking and North Atlantic ASW. All for 250-400 M GBP and a negligible increase in crewing requirements.
It is hard to disagree with any of Donald's detailed and thorough list - they are all sensible items that would hope that RN could afford if the government upped military budget.

The first priority for RN spending must be Tier One warships intended for high intensity combat versus Russia / China.

The T31 will be replacing one-for-one the initial five T23 GP frigates (and the River B2's that are currently covering them) in the Tier Two medium intensity conflicts. I do think maxing out the CAMM vls launchers by replacing the old fashioned mushrooms will make best use of that space without adding much extra demand on crew.

I agree that second priority should then be adding decent HMS and TAS so that they can provide additional ASW - agree that sensible to free up the T26 to focus on protecting Carriers and patrolling GIUK gap.

Agree that more important that Mk 41 VLS be fitted to the T26 or T45 as higher priority than adding them to T31.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

JohnM wrote: 02 May 2022, 16:55 …maybe GBP 50-80M per ship…….no more than 10-20 crew per ship
Exactlty.

IMO if the T31 is commissioned as originally envisaged it will be the next “Aircraft carriers without planes” PR disaster for RN, the MoD and HMG.

Frigates that can’t detect submarines is political dynamite in this climate and for the foreseeable future. Especially when the ships they are replacing are some the finest submarine hunting frigates ever made with extremely quiet acoustically optimised hulls and a highly capable hull mounted sonar.

The bean counters can argue endlessly about the “rights and wrongs” and “higher priorities” but what politician in this climate is going to sign off on a class of Frigates that can’t detect submarines when the nation is spending more than £45bn per annum on defence.

The deterioration of the security picture between 2010 and 2022 is dramatic and as such plans will have to change accordingly. The money will have to be found.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 May 2022, 16:42I agree with your list Donald but when the UK public is waking up to headlines like this what use are a new class of frigates that can’t find, track and if necessary destroy submarines? ...
IMO the T31 as originally envisaged is now not politically sustainable.

Extra T26 may be the answer also but little chance of that in the next 8 to 10 years.
...
IMO if the T31 is commissioned as originally envisaged it will be the next “Aircraft carriers without planes” PR disaster for RN, the MoD and HMG.

Frigates that can’t detect submarines is political dynamite in this climate and for the foreseeable future. Especially when the ships they are replacing are some the finest submarine hunting frigates ever made with extremely quiet acoustically optimised hulls and a highly capable hull mounted sonar.

The bean counters can argue endlessly about the “rights and wrongs” and “higher priorities” but what politician in this climate is going to sign off on a class of Frigates that can’t detect submarines when the nation is spending more than £45bn per annum on defence.

The deterioration of the security picture between 2010 and 2022 is dramatic and as such plans will have to change accordingly. The money will have to be found.
Thanks all, for good discussion.

I agree "deterioration of the security picture between 2010 and 2022 is dramatic". I agree "adding ASW capability to T31" will look "catchy". But, as it is catchy, I'm very much afraid it will STOP all the other much more needed investments.

By far, "buying more ammo, increasing (skilled) man-power, and improving the logistics and support" are the top three issues, which needs big investment for decades. Adding ASW on T31 will not solve any of the biggest RN problem, which is
- cannot use the "19 escorts" they have on paper.
- cannot fully crew all the other assets, including a LPD and two Tankers, in addition to (a few) escorts
- "No damage of available frigate numbers, even though disbanding a still very usable frigate (HMS Montrose) next year"
clearly shows the dangerous status of UK military. RN must not be great only on paper. RN must be great as a working navy.

And, before going down to T31 uparming, I have many other "catchy" items, like BMD, T26 radar, CV SeaCeptor, P-8/P-7/UAVs etc. Priority must be there.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

JohnM wrote: 02 May 2022, 16:55 Your list makes total sense, but doesn't give you more fighting hulls in the water, which in my view is an absolute priority.
As I noted above, "more fighting hulls in the water" is not my priority. If we correct the words as "more fighting hulls in the theater", I can agree. What is important is how to use it, not how to have it on paper (in the water).

If it is "Fighting ship in the theater", the three items for "operational improvements" are no doubt the highest priority. I think we all can agree here.

T45 BMD is very important. As Russian and Chinese Submarine threat is high, P-8 and/or introducing SkyGuardian ASW UAV are very important.

In the same regard, adding ASW capability to T31 is good. But, to counter submarine forces in large ocean, continuous surveillance of SkyGuardian ASW USV (or P-8) will make a big difference, but ASW capability from T31-mod will only make a small contribution.

So, my point is, modifying T31 is "the cheapest and quickest way to increase the number of surface hulls" as you said (I agree here), but it is NOT the cheapest and quickest way to improve the RN fighting capability, especially when thinking about ASW.


Personally, I would really like to see a small and cheap improvement on T31.

At least 24 CAMM with mushroom canisters. If it is 12 now, improving it to 24 is very cheap and easy. Software and data-link is there, all you need is to add 12 canister-holders, one electric box (LMS), and wiring them. As Babcock states CAMM number is not yet determined, I guess the T31 hull is still ready to handle (at least) 24. Adding a small hull sonar, mainly for mine and torpedo detection might come in as 2nd priority. Anyway, these updates will be easy and cheap, as you said.

Adding Mk.41 VLS and others, I'm afraid may cost a bit more (because of integrating everything into the CMS, wiring, front-end electronics boxes, higher computational power, and all the associated maintenance loads). I think T45 BMD and T26 improvements are far more important than these T31 "more" improvements.

As a GP frigate, T31 must face all the gray-zone war, and this type of war does not diminish even after Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainen war does not stop Iran, Yemen's Houthi rebels, nor east Mediterranean conflicts, and UK must keep committing there. To do it, in parallel with countering Russian and China, T31 must specially designed to efficiently and effectively counter the threats there, without significantly stealing the resources from CVTF, CASD, and tasks in the north. In this point, T31 "as is" is already not bad, I think.

Iranian SSK can be covered with land-based ASW assets, like SkyGuardian ASW UAVs. I am also very much interested in ARCIMS ASW (SeaSense) system towing LFAPS sonars, which (from AE-UK movie) can well be operated from land in Strait of Holmz or alike. To counter fast boat swarm and cheap UAV attacks, T31 is the better armed than any other RN escorts. To counter occasional ASM attack, T31's 12 or 24 CAMM is good enough.
If this were to be done, the RN would then have a great MP frigate that could still be forward deployed during peacetime, but would then be adequate for lower end taskings, like convoy and LRG escort, choke point patrol, FRE and even TAPS, therefore releasing the T26s and T45 for higher end stuff like CSG escort, NATO tasking and North Atlantic ASW. All for 250-400 M GBP and a negligible increase in crewing requirements.
I think I'm proposing better improvement of RN with the similar amount of money. My proposal of "T31 almost as is" added with "ASW UAVs/USVs" will cover all the tasks as you described here, I guess. Just handle it as a system, not limit only on T31, is my point.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacserge750

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

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

Post by jonas »

So I take it there is no actuall news on the RN T26 then. :wtf:
These users liked the author jonas for the post (total 3):
inchdonald_of_tokyoSKB

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

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

Post by leonard »

Latest model of Hunter class frigate (RAN variant of the Type 26 ).Your opinion on the ship ???

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

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

Post by Jdam »

No mid missile launchers?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jdam wrote: 11 May 2022, 16:07 No mid missile launchers?
Is there still space for 64 quad packed CAMM (or equivalent) forward of the Mk41 cells?

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

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

Post by leonard »

There is the detail which the ship model of the Hunter class frigate did not have the time to be reflected that the Australian MOD have chosen recently (two weeks ago) the Konsberg NSM as there next anti-ship missile so we have to keep in mind that at the place of the Harpoons we must assume will be NSM missile systems.

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 »

Is the 'L' shape in the CEFAR radar antennas a new feature? In previous depictions they have been plain squares/diamonds.

Post Reply