Steel cut on second Type 26 Frigate HMS Cardiff

Radar is such a critical area that I’d rather see a next-generation product arising from Artisan/Sampson to keep in-country capability. Artisan/Sampson references are not intended to indicate continued use of rotating arrays, more that we (the UK) already have some world-class back-end processing/analysis capabilities together with the technical expertise required to create them and I would prefer to see that expertise nurtured and built upon plus the quality of the existing product should give us a strong starting point to create something quite special for the next generation.

(P.S. I’m assuming you had a typo and meant CEAFAR from CEA Technologies – that’s not a dig, I bet a spellchecker probably mangled it for you, I just wanted to be sure.)

As I mentioned in a post earlier, there is a very good reason for having a rotating AESA antenna, which is purely down to the carried top weight. By having a rotating antenna rather than using fixed panels, the rotating antenna can be placed much higher and thus push out the horizon further.
The Australian CEAFAR uses a different method to the large SPY/6 panels on the Arleigh Burkes and Ticos. It uses groups of multiple panels spread up the “mast”. This allows them on the Hunter class (T26) to raise the effective height of the fixed panels compared to the SPY equipped ships. There are pros and cons of doing this though.
Personally for a ship, I think the best solution would be a combination of a rotating antenna high up on a mast, much like Sampson. But instead of the SMART-L replace it with AESA fixed panels. This will give the same coverage of the SMART-L, but with much better performance. By having the rotating AESA as high a possible, it will give the ship a better chance of detecting a sea-skimmer and thus more time to react. By having large fixed AESA panels more power can be transmitted or targeted at specific areas of interest, besides the much faster sweep rate etc.

Oh yeah. I’d read, remembered, understood and was grateful for your earlier post. My “…not intended to indicate continued use of rotating arrays…” was not intended to automatically imply any contra-indication for continued use of rotating arrays. I do not have the experience or expertise to express any opinion there so was attempting not to do so. As I was typing my last post I genuinely did consider putting in that clarification but decided not to to keep my post shorter. On reflection I should have been clearer.

If britain wanted the best radar it would buy them off the usa,america only has the finest military equipment

What a silly comment

I’m still surprised in all the publicity shots and data on the T26, that it is only getting the Artisan radar. I’m not knocking the Artisan, well, ok I am. It is yesterdays radar as its a PESA system, not AESA and yes it can track X amount of threats blah, blah. But it has only one antenna face and it rotates only once every 3 seconds. Thus, leaving a rotating blindspot which requires predictive memory tracking. This issue could be mitigated, if it followed the Sampson method of mounting antennas back to back. But it still negates the fact the the T26 will only have one primary 3D radar system. So if breaks down, you’re stuffed until its fixed.
I’m not saying that the ship requires the expensive SMART-L like the T45s, but it does need another radar that is as capable as Artisan. Much like the T45, where the Sampson and SMART-L complement each other by operating over different frequencies. Therefor, creating a better chance of detecting stealthy targets, but incorporating redundancy if one of the radars is unusable for some reason.

It’s open architecture so in theory it is upgradeable. It is also my understanding that it uses a lots of fairly simple technology so it should be upgradeable if they get the initial cabling spec right. As that will be the limiting factor (data throughput)

Lots of current weapon systems talk to each other over a data highway. A T23 has 3 highways for redundancy all travelling bow to stern on different decks, on the keel and port and stbd. Irrespective of the system in the ship they must pass data onto and take it off the highway in a specific way. This is done through a Data Interface unit that is the same for all systems. Each system has a specific “translator ” card that converts system info into data highway info and back again.
As long as the data is configured to go onto and off the highway in the correct format through the interface unit it does not matter what computer language the system uses.

COTS and open architecture helps with the next stage in systems design.Systems will be using using freely available tech such as graphics cards, network cards and processors instead of purpose built circuitry. The MOD has spent years paying over the odds for circuit boards built specially for equipment , in small quantities by sometimes the equivalent of a bloke in a shed! When the company goes out of business the MOD is left with only expensive repair solutions to keep the equipment going. Open architecture and COTS will help to stop this.

Thank you for the excellent explanation G.B.

Cheers!

That is my point entirely – till I’m blue in the face. If it ultimately proves cost effective for the richest country in the world, then carry on the same way here i.e. just keep building Type 26 hulls around the UK as the drumbeat and adapt as required over time. Yes, it’s initially expensive and will never be ‘cheap’ nothing worthwhile ever is – most especially where warfighting and lives are concerned. The Type 26 is future-proofed both in size and quietness, and just because not all hulls will be tasked with subhunting (to start with, at least?) that does not make them unattractive targets to subs!
Our current frigates are all Type 23s but not all dedicated to anti-submarine warfare; they did fullfill that task for the threats they were designed to combat, though, and represented the best in their field at the time – and still represent good value for money now. They also started as the ‘cheap’ option to complement the Type 22s, but fortunately progressed through the design stage to become far more competent.

Hi Frank

I think a T26 with a Sampson Radar would be far more capable than anything we have ever seen. Intrinsically the T26 is a massive step up from the T45 and lessons learned from the T45 are incorporated it really is the best of both worlds.

The fact is we need a single destroyer class that can do it all and is high end and a large corvette that can do the rest.

By ordering 14 Arleigh Burke style ships we really do increase our capability and with the money saved (£6bn) we can get a fleet of at least 12 T31 and probably 14.

That whilst not perfect, gives us an increase in both capability and volume.

Not sure we need dedicated ASW and AAW warships as the world has moved on and we need ships that can hold their own.

So I think these would be first rate, but understand your concern.

A T26 fitted with the Sampson Radar, will require extensive redesign of the structural of the frigate. Notice the T45 sits high in the water, and a T23 sits low in the water? At times, the stern of the T23 seems to be below water!

Meirion X

Perhaps it would, but I would be surprised if it did given the radar needs of the Canadians and Australians ultimately it is better to spend the money now than later, and its also a lot cheaper than designing a new hull form.

Understand there are going to be challenges, but we cannot afford to design classes of 6 from scratch, its one of the reasons our vessels are so expensive.

Ultimately – we need to start replacing T45 in circa 10-15 years and the T26 should be the baseline for that, far cheaper and better than any other approach.

If we can do that now – when we haven’t built the first then that is a massive win for me, if not fine, we do it from batch 2 onwards.

Meirion x – I’m no expert on ships by any means but the ability to handle increased Top Weight margins is down to the Beam – T45 is 21.2m vs T26 @ 20.8m so they are not that far apart.

and millions more expensive.

Perhaps Andy, but where do you spend the money, gettting a single class specified properly and building in volume, or designing small classes of ships from scratch.

We need a t45 replacement, and the T26 platform is ideal for its replacement, sooner we bite the bullet the better.

this issue has been on this board for 5 years at least.

If you read the article, and the one in the Telegraph from May7th, you’ll change your mind. Of course, that assumes the sources within the MOD used by savetheroyalnavy and the Telegraph are reliable. Of course, I don’t know whether they are. I’m certainly glad things are moving in the right direction; there’s no way you can field a credible frigate for £250M. I think we both know that.

Nick, I must eat some humble pie and admit I am wrong. Apologies.

On July 11, Stuart Andrew in parliament said

“I have been checking throughout the price we have, which is £250 million per ship. We made some initial adjustments to make it tie in with the way we have procured other warships in the past, so we have taken costs such as Government-furnished equipment out of that £250 million.”

Stuart is under secretary at the MoD.

if we cn built two multi billion carriers with a 50 years service projection, then the same policy should apply for all new builds

Would cost a fortune to do that, might as well build new subs from scratch.

Also diesel subs are fine for local patrols, in our case direct defence of the UK from any undersea threats, but they’re no good as a submarine escort to a QE taskforce as they have no legs. Expensive as they are, nuclear submarines are the way forward in terms of power projection, which is the way the RN going.

A diesel sub loses all pretense of stealth if it has to be refuelled at sea or leave for a friendly port to refuel.

And seeing as Type 26 costs £1.25billion per ship, an Astute is not all that much more really.

Actually Andy, It is almost impossible to see where the MOD actually spends its money as it does not seem to be spent on either people or new equipment.

Lets take the RN as an example. It has a fleet of circa 80 (with RFA) so lets say it builds 3 ships every single year, to build those ships and fit out with everything costs £2bn with a further £600m pa going to helicopters, unmanned systems, munitions etc. (We can say a T26/Astute every other year @£1bn + 2 others) and £400m contingency. So we spend £3bn on new equipment every year, ensuring we build up stocks of munitions etc.

Out of a stated budget of £18bn pa this isn’t a lot even if you give the RAF £4bn and the Army £3bn, that only comes to £10bn pa, leaving £8bn pa for maintenance and support (total cost of ownership).

These figures become even more opaque when you discount the silly price of a T26 from its 10 year total cost of ownership £1.2bn as clearly its closer to 600-800m to purchase.

So from my point of view the MOD does have enough money to spend on equipment, if its figures are transparent and accurate.

New Equipment £10bn pa
Maintenance and Support £8bn pa
Facilities Management £4bn pa
Operational costs (non personnel) – £2bn pa
Personnel costs – £12bn pa

We do need more money – to grow the personnel budget (£6bn) and increase the operational costs (£2bn) and welfare, which I would like to see have its own budget of £2bn pa.