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

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

albedo wrote: 27 Mar 2022, 15:36
NickC wrote: 27 Mar 2022, 14:18 The old joke in the US R&D community comes to mind "lasers are the weapons of the future ... and always will be".
The problem with this sort of 'joke' is that it denies the possibility of major technological advances. Look at what the advent of REBCO magnets has done for the prospects for nuclear fusion reactors for instance. What was previously possible on only a massively costly scale (see the ITER project for instance) now looks feasible at a national or enterprise rather than an international scale. OK, there's probably still a decade or more of development and pilot scale reactors still to go, but suddenly the outlook is looking much more positive.

Who is to say that some similar breakthrough might not happen with laser weapons - I'm not aware that there's any major physics barrier like the speed of sound or light in play here. Maybe it won't ever happen, but it might just take some new material development or bright idea to be a step change in their prospects too.
Lasers - Light and other electromagnetic radiation is subject to the Inverse Square Law (the major physics barrier) which explains the drastic laser light fall-off in power with increasing distance of the target eg at 2 km only able to deliver 1/4 of the power at 1 km, at 3 km its down to 1/9th, at 4 km 1/16 and so on. The power drop means very short range weapons, at longer ranges 5 km plus requires big power and a fantastically accurate fire control systems needed to hold the limited power of the laser beam concentrated on a few sq cm of the target if going to burn through and destroy target, so speculating will be very expensive pieces of kit destroying the rationale for laser systems over rocket powered missiles.

Special cases where lasers applicable, Israel where with Iron Dome they fired 1,600? Tamir missiles to counter the 4,000+ rocket attacks from Gaza in 11 days May last year which does not come cheap even at only at $186,000 per missile, Israel granted $1 billion in extra aid from US to help fund the missiles plus additional $500 million for general missile defence. Israel is developing the short range Iron Beam laser as a less expensive option, expect will be a viable system as Israel has wall to wall sunshine. As said if atmospheric conditions not favourable, cloud, rain etc, the laser beam subject to dispersion making it near useless.

Think for T83 to make it 'future' proofed for lasers looks pure waste of money as the odds on lasers becoming viable weapon system very low except in exceptional circumstances as in Israel.

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

NickC wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 11:24
Lasers - Light and other electromagnetic radiation is subject to the Inverse Square Law (the major physics barrier) which explains the drastic laser light fall-off in power with increasing distance of the target eg at 2 km only able to deliver 1/4 of the power at 1 km, at 3 km its down to 1/9th, at 4 km 1/16 and so on.
Not really. The inverse square law applies to point sources, which a laser is not. It is a beam (or, more likely, a focused beam). Intensity will degrade with distance I'm sure, except less so in space or at very high altitude, but with some sort of linear proportionality at a guess.

Anyway, that's really beside the point, which is not to write off concepts simply because they are somewhat out of reach with current technology. If it's possible to anticipate that significant technology advances are possible within the lifetime of a platform then it may well be worth including some flexibility in the platform design to allow for this possibility.

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

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

Post by Jdam »

Thanks to https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839 for pointing me to this.



Looks like she still has some work to do before hitting the water. Bob must be spiting his time between Glasgow and Cardiff ;)
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

albedo wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 12:29
NickC wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 11:24
Lasers - Light and other electromagnetic radiation is subject to the Inverse Square Law (the major physics barrier) which explains the drastic laser light fall-off in power with increasing distance of the target eg at 2 km only able to deliver 1/4 of the power at 1 km, at 3 km its down to 1/9th, at 4 km 1/16 and so on.
Not really. The inverse square law applies to point sources, which a laser is not. It is a beam (or, more likely, a focused beam). Intensity will degrade with distance I'm sure, except less so in space or at very high altitude, but with some sort of linear proportionality at a guess.

Anyway, that's really beside the point, which is not to write off concepts simply because they are somewhat out of reach with current technology. If it's possible to anticipate that significant technology advances are possible within the lifetime of a platform then it may well be worth including some flexibility in the platform design to allow for this possibility.
I'm no physicist but very much doubt your claim the Inverse Square Law applicable to light and other electromagnetic radiation does not apply to lasers, definition of a laser is "an optical amplifier - a device that strengthens light waves" if I'm wrong please quote source. Did remember mention lasers can mitigate the ISL to single point for a short distance with Rayleigh effect? Do agree with your point that lasers might be more effective where less atmospheric disturbance as in space and high altitudes, noticeable that the new RR engines for the Tempest will have much more powerful generators built in, presumably for more powerful radar, jammers and perhaps lasers.

As said lasers for ships at sea level a questionable add on, DragonFire was a £30+ million failure, the USN Lockheed HELIOS running two years late before delivery to ship for trials this year, HELIOS 60 kW limited power so only able to take out Class I and II drones. Very limited info released on lasers, speculating HELIOS range ~5 km, power ~ 5 kJ per sq cm enough to burn through plastic on a good day, if your requirement is to take out aircraft/missile did see 24 kJ per sq cm required to burn through ICBM rocket motor casing perhaps why US Army specifying 300 kW and even 1 MW to take cruise missiles. All will be short range and no doubt very costly and if weather unfavourable as today where I'm with low cloud the laser beam will be scattered/dispersed to make it so underpowered that will have no effect on target.

So as said think waste of money designing the T83 as a laser platform at this time, over the last few decades one lesson has been that you do not design ships for unproven weapon systems (remember Admiral claiming the T26 designed on that principle so costs will be kept under control :clap: ), should follow the policy advocated in the National Shipbuilding Strategy of continuous build so if ever lasers become viable built into next batch to keep a healthy shipbuilding industry, think I'm dreaming.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

I think the best way to put it is that both coherent and incoherent beams obey the inverse square law, but in different ways. A point source's power varies according to the surface area of a sphere (4πr2) whereas the coherent beam varies in proportion to the cross-sectional area of the beam (πr2). So both vary according to r2. The difference is that the radius of the coherent beam increases in a linear fashion (once you get beyond the Rayleigh range), so the power is actually much more focussed than a beam of ordinary light from a point source.

BTW the curious π symbol was supposed to be Pi = it didn't copy well!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

Caribbean wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 17:40 I think the best way to put it is that both coherent and incoherent beams obey the inverse square law, but in different ways. A point source's power varies according to the surface area of a sphere (4πr2) whereas the coherent beam varies in proportion to the cross-sectional area of the beam (πr2). So both vary according to r2.
No, you're confusing two different r values. What we're talking about is how the light intensity varies with distance from the source, let's call it 'd' to avoid confusion. From a point source such as a light bulb or a star the intensity will vary as 1/d^2.

But we can't say anything comparable about a laser beam, except that typically in this context it will be focused and the beam will reach maximum intensity some distance from the source. No focus or beam collimation is perfect and so, even ignoring effects of eg atmospheric absorption, beam intensity will slowly fall off, but only over very long distances, eg a km or 10's of km. The 'r' in the cross-sectional area of a laser beam is something else altogether and simply defines how the total energy emission from the laser is spread across the beam's cross section.

Wish I'd never mentioned it now - it's a side issue to the main point. (But nonetheless should be self-evident if you stop and think about it for a moment.)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

albedo wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 19:10 No, you're confusing two different r values.
That was rather the point that I was making - that they both can be described as "obeying the inverse square law", but only if you use two different measurements for r2. This is what often leads to confusion.

As for a coherent beam, it is not "focused" per se, it consists of a beam of photons which are all of the same frequency and are all in phase. As no laser is perfect (and, of course atmospheric distortion and other factors come into play), the beam will diverge from a true cylinder, tending towards a cone, which is where the other r2 value (normally given the symbol "u", but I used "r" to emphasis the point) comes in, leading to a loss of energy per cm2 over distance. We are saying the same thing, but in different ways.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Mar 2022, 22:07
bobp wrote: 27 Mar 2022, 20:16 400 more Bobs needed on the Clyde for T26 work.....

Let's hope at least some of them fully understand gearboxes after the recent repy to House of Lords Defence Questions....
Glasgow today is mini-London and there is little heavy industry left in the west of Scotland. I think they're going to struggle to get those positions filled.

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 »

Shame that they did not take on more apprentices at an early enough time then. If they had, then they would not now be facing a need to recruit (such a large number, anyway) !

But looking on the bright side, I suppose they could always poach (from Ferguson). :lol:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
SD67

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 21:35 Shame that they did not take on more apprentices at an early enough time then. If they had, then they would not now be facing a need to recruit (such a large number, anyway) !
I remember there were 100-200 hundreds of apprentices each year. Actually, BAE-shipbuilding's web page is filled with photos of many apprentices. Simply it was not enough, and/or many of them walked away. Are there any information on "settling rate" of apprentices in many industrial sectors?

Shipbuilding "might" be not popular, which is thoroughly understandable the 20-30 years negative mood in the sector. And/or, wage might not be enough ? (but higher wage means more costy ships).

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 »

Jdam wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 20:42 "twitter.com/lene2104/status/1508474567865552905?cxt=HHwWksCypZLolu8pAAAA"
Looks like she still has some work to do before hitting the water. Bob must be spiting his time between Glasgow and Cardiff ;)
Thanks for sharing good photos. For me, it looks like she is starting to pain/repaint her steel part. So, I had a feeling that she are getting more and more ready for afloat?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Jdam wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 20:42 Thanks to https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839 for pointing me to this.



Looks like she still has some work to do before hitting the water. Bob must be spiting his time between Glasgow and Cardiff ;)
Working outside under scaffolding and a tarp in winter in Scotland -welcome to the 19th century LOL. Current weather 4 degrees C

In Barrow they got rid of the scaffolding in 2007 and the Devonshire Dock Hall has awesome central heating.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Jdam wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 20:42 Thanks to https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839 for pointing me to this.



Looks like she still has some work to do before hitting the water. Bob must be spiting his time between Glasgow and Cardiff ;)
Working outside under scaffolding and a tarp in winter in Scotland -welcome to the 19th century LOL. Current weather 4 degrees C

In Barrow they got rid of the scaffolding in 2007 and the Devonshire Dock Hall has awesome central heating.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

SD67 wrote:Devonshire Dock Hall has awesome central heating.
Because it is warmer, is the Devonshire Dock Hall more chewier than Barrow-in-Furness bus depot?! ;)

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

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

Post by SouthernOne »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 14:32
Lord Jim wrote: 26 Mar 2022, 14:02 Ideally in my opinion the T-83 needs to be a British manufactured and tweaked clone of the Arleigh Burke plight III, with matching weapons loadout, sensor capability and aviation assets.
The Arleigh Burke's make great all-round escorts able to cover most missions because of their size and large number of flexible use VLS Launchers, albeit with a leaning towards AAW due to their Aegis. Flight III takes that up a notch with their ability to provide BMD.

If we can guarantee six hulls then I love them to be UK version of Flight III. If they shared systems, sensors and weapons that would certainly help UK-US naval interoperability.

Of course by the time that BAE have finished building the T26, (and with 18 month gap between the 8 ships means well over a decade after the first ship finished before the last ship is ready), we might also need to look at the US DDX as the replacement for Arleigh Burke Flight I / Ii.
A lot of the work needed turn the T26 into an AB equivalent will have already been undertaken for the Aus and Can variants: state of the art radar, incorporation of the Aegis CMS and other US origin systems. Perhaps just re-evaluate the need for the multi mission bay compared to aft Mark 41 VLS cells.

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

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

Post by Jdam »



I think there is a ship under there. ;)

I wonder if there is an opportunity for the ships to be more complete before hitting the water now that they don't need to free up slip ways for the next ship and its on level ground.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

These users liked the author SKB for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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 »

Some more.

These users liked the author imperialman for the post (total 2):
The Armchair SoldierJensy

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 »

Out of interest, how tall is HMS Glasgow compared to say a T-45?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Lord Jim wrote: 20 Apr 2022, 12:59 Out of interest, how tall is HMS Glasgow compared to say a T-45?
Landshark provided a good comparison:
Image
These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 2):
CaribbeanLord Jim

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Much closer in size than I appreciated. Using a T26-sized hull, perhaps with a slight stretch, for the T83 does indeed look feasible, if that is what is intended
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

And a diagram by Shipbucket.com :
Image
Sadly, Wikipedia doesn't have height data for any of the ships, but my ruler says T45 is slightly taller than T26!

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 »

imperialman wrote: 20 Apr 2022, 11:50 Some more.

:thumbdown: Nice to see BAE didn't even go with plan C at Govan. After the frigate factory at either Scotstoun (A) or both Scotsoun and Govan (B) was turned down they put in planning permission (C) to rebuild the quayside at Govan and level off all the slipways giving them more assembly area.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

Until the Hoore o Holyrood gives up, they won't do anything other than maybe paint the building.

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 »

Maybe she would relent iif it became known that the T83 (to potentially be built there) would be known as either the Sturgeon Class, or even the Independence Class ? :mrgreen:

Post Reply