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

[jimthelad]

As long as she is a permanent fixture to the subsurface hullform I might even agree.

[zanahoria]

Some more.

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.

With only a firm order for three T26s and plenty of anti-BAE sentiment within the government and influential commentators, would you invest?

The government should have committed to 9 T26s (for the price of 8) and BAE would have a business case for investment. Personally, I would be going for a firm order for 5 T26s and 8 T83s with clear timelines and penalties now - BAE will then have a need to ehance.

[NickC]

The government should have committed to 9 T26s (for the price of 8) and BAE would have a business case for investment.

Why when the Admiralty made 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. Vice Admiral Chris Gardner words in interview 6 months ago.

[Repulse]

The government should have committed to 9 T26s (for the price of 8) and BAE would have a business case for investment.

Why when the Admiralty made 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. Vice Admiral Chris Gardner words in interview 6 months ago.

Thanks - I guess it depends on whether you believe the surface ASW role ends at just supporting CASD and CEPP. The fact we have Russian subs playing close (and maybe even in) UK waters, and our desire to play close to theirs (with limited SSN assets) to me suggests that the requirement is bigger.

[Scimitar54]

We may be well prepared for “Peacetime”! However, deterrence to those who would make “War” requires far more than that. Those that have been mollycoddled in recent decades to believe that War is unthinkable, are hardly likely to fully realise the implications of insufficient numbers, when damage may occur to just one or two of the (reduced number of) vessels available.
If any proof of this is needed, one only has to look to the recent events in Ukraine.
This is one definite area, where LESS is NOT MORE but is rather, potentially MUCH LESS !

[leonard]

On the Australian side of Type 26 class It seams that Navantia of Spain have declared a full war on the future RAN Hunter class frigate (Australian version of the Type 26 ).
The objective is to have a second contract of 3 new Hobart class ships.(The study below is financed by Navantia )
https://t.co/VRPluBvMaZ

[leonard]

On the same subject different media.
(Sorry article is in Spanish)
https://t.co/pgVt45Xr4J

[wargame_insomniac]

On the Australian side of Type 26 class It seams that Navantia of Spain have declared a full war on the future RAN Hunter class frigate (Australian version of the Type 26 ).
The objective is to have a second contract of 3 new Hobart class ships.(The study below is financed by Navantia )
https://t.co/VRPluBvMaZ

That study might be biased but have seen similar criticisms of the Hunter class in previous articles online. The Aussies are paying a lot of money to amend the T26 to RAN specifications.

And in a war in the Pacific against presumably Chinese, the PLAN do seem to have impressive anti-ship misiles in both quality and quantity. It is why I have commented in the various escort threads that I hoped for an increase for an increase in VLS cells for current and future RN escorts.

Assuming you want escorts to have some ability against targets on sea/land/ASW/AAW then you need to have a mixture of missiles in VLS cells. If you had as an example, say 48 VLS cells and wanted say 8 apiece of anti ship/land/sub missiles, that would leave 24 cells for AAW. If you took say 8 cells with close ranged quad-packed AAW missiles, then could carry further 16 medium ranged AAW missiles. Assuming an all-round escort with amixture of capabilities rather than being biased towards specific target.

In comparsion the Hunter has 32 cells VLS. Might be more tha T26, but that shows the T26 is still underarmed. Meanwhile the US, Chinese, Japanese and even Korean navies are building AAW escorts with around 90-110 VLS cells....

[tomuk]

But Hunter isn't meant to be an AAW destroyer the Hobarts fulfil that role. The Hunters will replace the ANZACs and provide a substantially improved ASW capability.

[Lord Jim]

Also how many VLS Cells does the Constellation class have? The US and China may have destroyers with 100+ VLS Cells, but they are really the only nations who can afford such ships in any quantity. I do not think the future T-83 will have the same number either.

[serge750]

I Think we would be really lucky to see the T83 with 36 x CAMM in mushrooms (cheap) & 48 mk 41....but fingers crossed

[SW1]

Wonder if the same people 6 weeks ago were counting missiles on Russian ships as a measure of there effectiveness?

The Australians also have canister launched ASM.

[jonas]

Yea right, so on the personal views of two people, Australia is going to ditch Hunter. I don't think so. Why is it that these so called experts, can't air their opinions before all major decisions have been taken. Hindsite is a wonderfull thing.

"The views expressed on The Strategist are those of the individual authors and don’t represent the views of ASPI or the institutions to which the authors are attached."

,

[wargame_insomniac]

Also how many VLS Cells does the Constellation class have? The US and China may have destroyers with 100+ VLS Cells, but they are really the only nations who can afford such ships in any quantity. I do not think the future T-83 will have the same number either.

Thle USN currently has something like 90 Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke escorts. I know that number might fluctuate over the next few years as Ticonderoga's might be retired early but new Arleigh Burke Flight III's and soon DDG(X) being built.

Meanwhile the Constellation class were supposed to be 30 strong, but so far in FY22 Budget they have ordered just the first ship. They are effectively replacing the LCS. But even so it will take many years before they get to 30 Constellations.

So for RAN it is 3 Hobarts and 9 Hunters versus USN it is 90 Ticonderoga / Arleigh Burke's / DDG(X) and 30 Constellation.

So when people say "what about Constellation" they are such a small proportion of USN - one quarter to one third.

And JMSDF most recent 8 destroyers have 90+ VLS with 2 more ordered, whilst the Republic Korea Navy has 3 so far and 3 more being built.

[SW1]

How many VLS did the Ukrainians have when they sunk the Russian flagship?

[wargame_insomniac]

How many VLS did the Ukrainians have when they sunk the Russian flagship?

The Russians had a failure of intelligence (to know that Ukranians had got their Neptune missiles fully operational), a failure of maintenance (as Moskva didn't receive several planned refit upgrades to this 40 year old ship that other ships of Slava class had already had, due to funding issues), a failure in systems (as one of the main radars only had 180 degree arc), and possibly a failure in operational procedures (as crew seemed to have got complacent and did not activate AAW defences).

I am not sure should plan for future ships assuming that all those failings will still apply.....

But we are drifting further and further away from T26 or even Hunter class.

[SW1]

[quote=SW1 post_id=139153 time=<a href="tel:1650789295">1650789295</a> user_id=2026]
How many VLS did the Ukrainians have when they sunk the Russian flagship?

The Russians had a failure of intelligence (to know that Ukranians had got their Neptune missiles fully operational), a failure of maintenance (as Moskva didn't receive several planned refit upgrades to this 40 year old ship that other ships of Slava class had already had, due to funding issues), a failure in systems (as one of the main radars only had 180 degree arc), and possibly a failure in operational procedures (as crew seemed to have got complacent and did not activate AAW defences).

I am not sure should plan for future ships assuming that all those failings will still apply.....

But we are drifting further and further away from T26 or even Hunter class.
[/quote]

The capability of the hunter class, the navy in general or even control of the sea is not determined by either the number or type of ships they have or by counting silos.

[NickC]

My understanding Hunter has a six sided deckhouse so as able accommodate all the flat panel GaN radar array panels, CEA Technologies mentioned in 2017 its Hunter CEAFAR radar would be approx 20 panels in choice of S-, X-, L- or C-band, not sure what the final choice of radar bands and number of panels was settled on for the Hunter.

CEA "The key advantage in having such a large number of elements and 6-faces, is that the radar can deal with multiple threats at the same time as well as threats demanding a very fast response such as supersonic missiles. “When a supersonic missile is detected attacking a ship, there is virtually no time for human decision-making; instead, it is crucial to have a system that can detect and make a decision as fast as possible,”

The price of this sophisticated radar system is heavy top weight, the high power (GaN radars need ~ five times power of previous gen radars) and consequent additional cooling required to service all the radars (extra refrigeration plants). This in part has led to the claim Hunter displacement has grown to over 10,000t from the original 8,800t, limiting future normal growth to a few percent (normally new ships built with ~10% growth margin) which basis of criticism, extra weight normally equates to extra costs.

Would note expect Hunter with its US Aegis CMS and its 32 VLS cells to be fitted with ESSM, SM-2 and LRASM (Thales Australia with assistance from Lockheed currently developing a booster to launch the LRASM from Mk41VLS cell).

[tomuk]

My understanding Hunter has a six sided deckhouse so as able accommodate all the flat panel GaN radar array panels, CEA Technologies mentioned in 2017 its Hunter CEAFAR radar would be approx 20 panels in choice of S-, X-, L- or C-band, not sure what the final choice of radar bands and number of panels was settled on for the Hunter.

CEA "The key advantage in having such a large number of elements and 6-faces, is that the radar can deal with multiple threats at the same time as well as threats demanding a very fast response such as supersonic missiles. “When a supersonic missile is detected attacking a ship, there is virtually no time for human decision-making; instead, it is crucial to have a system that can detect and make a decision as fast as possible,”

The price of this sophisticated radar system is heavy top weight, the high power (GaN radars need ~ five times power of previous gen radars) and consequent additional cooling required to service all the radars (extra refrigeration plants). This in part has led to the claim Hunter displacement has grown to over 10,000t from the original 8,800t, limiting future normal growth to a few percent (normally new ships built with ~10% growth margin) which basis of criticism, extra weight normally equates to extra costs.

Where is the finesse? Where's the optimisation? Just slap every radar panel you've got on the ship and hope for the best. And hobble the ship with huge topweight and power/cooling requirements.

[ETH]

I Think we would be really lucky to see the T83 with 36 x CAMM in mushrooms (cheap) & 48 mk 41....but fingers crossed

With current trends (both RN and globally) I think that's very pessimistic. You're describing an increase of just 12 CAMM over the Type 45. I would expect to see 64 Mk41 equivalent as standard.

[dmereifield]

The pessimist in me foresees 48 CAMM and 48 Mk41. Still waiting for evidence that HMG have realised the error of their ways and will fund defence properly and that the MoD/RN will invest sensibly (no more gapping the essentials or doing the minimum to tick a capability box)

[Lord Jim]

I think I was misunderstood up above. I Was asking how many VLS an individual Constellation class FFG will carry not how many of the class were planned, though I think they may well end up with more than thirty is they want to increase the size of their Escort fleet. At present is seems the ship will have thirty two MK41 VLS cells (4x6), but will also carry sixteen canister launched NSM AShMs and a twenty one round launcher for the effective Rolling Airframe Missile.

Now compare the Royal Navy's T-26 with twenty four Mk41 VLS Cells (3x8) and forty eight Sea Ceptor Point Defence Missiles. Unless we decide to integrate a canister launched AShM, at least a third of the Mk41 VLS Cells are going to have to be allocated to containing AShMs. Why the Royal Navy thinks it is OK to let ships sail with no AShMs when every other Navy in the World does the opposite is beyond me. The "Interim" AShM would have complimented the FCASW, not threaten that programme. The French Navy has happily introduced its latest iteration of its well known Exocet AShM the Block 3, keeping the weapon viable until the introduction of the FCASW. Why have we not kept our inventory of Harpoon AShMs up to date, for what would have been a small cost if dome incrementally in a spiral upgrade over the past decades.

I still strongly believe the remaining T-26s should be reconfigured into a Batch 2. This would entail removing the six cell "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor, increasing the number of "Strike" length MK41 VLS Cells to 32 (4x8) and install sixteen "Defence" or "Standard" length Mk41 Cells amidships where the twenty Four "Mushrooms" are on the Batch one vessels. With CEC and software updates, the T-26 could act as magazines, with SM-6 or a modified Aster-30, for any Battlegroups T-45/T-83 enabling that vessel to become a Air Warfare management platform. Of course the T-26 could operate its own missiles, especially its Sea Ceptor Missiles, of which if Quad Packed could be as many as sixty four, but more likely somewhere between thirty two and that higher number.

Both the Batch 1 and Batch two should carry at least eight of the Interim AShMs in canisters which would then be both complimented and supplemented by any FCASW housed in the "Strike" length MK41 VLS Cells. The Standard Length MK$41s could also house VL-ASROC or its longer ranged South Korean half Brother as an alternative to Sea Ceptor.

As you can see, the proposed Batch 2 T-26 would have far greater offensive capabilities as well as greater defensive ones to. The increase in the number of "Strike" length Mk41 VLS Cell forward is already incorporated in the design of the RAN's Hunter variant and the space and deck penetration of two eight cell "Standard" length VLS units should occupy approximately the space occupied by the twenty four "Mushroom" canisters on the current Batch 1's. Space also exists for at least eight canister launched AShMs as per the RCN variant at least.

[leonard]

In more news from Australia the critics of the Hunter class frigate (RAN variant of the UK Type 26 ) are not letting up.Here is another article

[wargame_insomniac]

In more news from Australia the critics of the Hunter class frigate (RAN variant of the UK Type 26 ) are not letting up.Here is another article

That article being discussed in Australian Defence Forces thread.

[R686]

In more news from Australia the critics of the Hunter class frigate (RAN variant of the UK Type 26 ) are not letting up.Here is another article

In regards to the RAN, I think what is being lost in all the confusion is even with only 32 cell VLS its a massive improvement on the current ANZAC to which the Hunter will eventually replace, even if we replace with Arleigh Burke destroyers manning levels would dictate a reduction in number of ships to around 5 unless there is a increase to the size of the RAN.

Now if the RAN were to act independently we are not talking a China campaign so the chances are we will not need the firepower, on the other hand if we are part of a coalition we will be supporting the US Carrier/Amphibious fleets the RAN will not be conducting independent operations and those Hunters will be doing what they are built for ASW ops and will have a US/RAN DDG within the task group