The Type 4X, the Type 45 Destroyer replacement, is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate is officially being considered for the job.
UPDATED 21/10/20
The UK Defence Journal has been speaking to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder. We have been told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that will function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme is currently referred to as as T4X.
For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Scottish politician and was the Member of Parliament for Glasgow North East until the last election. More importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the APPG for Shipbuilding which published the results of inquiry into the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, taking evidence from a range of maritime security stakeholders and industry.
It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.
Sweeney told me after attending the steel cutting ceremony for the future HMS Cardiff:
“It is clear that we now have a unique opportunity to create a truly international naval shipbuilding alliance with Canada and Australia with Type 26 (both countries have purchased the design) – and consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26 as an eventual replacement for Type 45 – known currently as T4X.
The aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.”
I’ve also been told that the 4X project has a nickname, ‘Project Castlemaine’. Pun intended.
What’s happening right now with the Type 26 Frigate build?
Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will be negotiated in the coming year.
Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels for example.
The last vessel in the class is likely to be in the water by 2035.
When asked about what comes after the Type 26 on the Clyde, Sweeney made mention of the desire to keep building a new vessel based on the Type 26 Frigate.
“Discussions are at a very early concept stage, but the merits of continuous build using T26 as a common family was clear from my conversations with BAE directors and MOD decision makers.”
“They said they were ‘keen to make the numbers work’ on it”, he added.
The Type 45 Destroyers are expected to begin going out of service in the thirties, perfect timing given the last Type 26 Frigate is expected to be launched in 2035.
Is the Type 26 Frigate suitable for hosting the required sensors for anti-air warfare work?
The Type 45 destroyers use the SAMPSON radar with the PAAMS missile system, now referred to as ‘Sea Viper’ in UK service. SAMPSON itself is a multi-function dual-face active electronically scanned array radar produced by BAE Systems on the Isle of Wight but it’s a big, heavy and expensive piece of kit.
SAMPSON provides surveillance, target tracking and missile information and on the Type 45, the radar sits nearly 40 metres (131ft) above sea level at the top of the ship’s distinctive mast.
However, some defence commentators have expressed concerns over whether or not the Type 26 Frigate hull is capable of supporting the system and required mast.
Addressing this, Paul told me that the vessel is capable of being fitted with a radar mast similar to that seen onboard the Type 45 Destroyers, the mast that puts some in mind of the ‘Coneheads’ from TV.
“The Type 26 is of sufficient beam to be fitted with a tall Sampson type MFR radar mast – especially given the latest composite design options – so there is the basis to have a common hull type and family of ships: ASW, GP and AAW.”
What does this approach mean for UK shipbuilding?
In a previous discussion, Paul pointed out that the aspiration for shipbuilding in the UK according to officials, would be to have two main yards for warships. The first being the Clyde with its Type 26 frigates and an eventual replacement for the Type 45 destroyers and the second site, currently somewhat up in the air given no contract has yet been awarded, would focus on building Type 31e Frigate.
“The Ministry of Defence want to get to a position where there is a constant rolling production line of Type 26/Type 45 successor and a second production line of Type 31e – building both lines permanently. As older ships leave service or are sold abroad, new vessels enter service.”
We all remember the proposed ‘Frigate Factory’ for the Clyde, dropped by BAE after the UK Government scaled back and slowed the pace of the Type 26 Frigate build. Could such an approach finally see it built? Well, I once again asked Paul.
“This opportunity would enable the proposed ‘Frigate Factory’ or Modern Dock Hall concept to be realised, which would finally deliver the purpose-built shipyard infrastructure to maximise shipbuild efficiency, which is similar to the level of investment that is being made in Adelaide by Australia and in Halifax by Canada for their respective Type 26 frigate programmes – that will ensure that the Clyde will then be in pole position to win further export orders for third party countries which are not interested in ensuring domestic build (e.g. New Zealand) as the cost significantly reduces over time and reputation of the ship is established.”
Sweeney also discussed the Type 31e, echoing a concern that many commentators have also expressed, that the vessel may ultimately detract from the Type 26 Frigate programme.
“There is also now increasing doubt that Type 31e will ever live up to its expectations on cost, capability and delivery schedule. Perhaps it might be best to emulate what Canada and Australia are doing and focus our efforts on an increased drumbeat of Type 26 production at a purpose built national naval shipbuilding centre of excellence.”
Given the aim being aspired to for two main UK production centres for fighting ships, this would in my view make long term orders from the Government more feasible as hopefully the cost may be reduced through efficiencies that are inherent to a large, single site.
Currently, ships are largely built in Govan and floated down the river to Scotstoun to be fully fitted out.
Such a commitment from the government in the form of more long term orders would perhaps enable BAE Systems to invest in the kind of frigate factory/modern dock hall discussed in previous years with all of this putting the industry on a more secure and sustainable footing.
It’s not a new concept either. Doing work like this would maintain relatively constant production, similar to the Arleigh Burke class in the United States which has now been in build for decades with each batch being superior to the last.
So, what does this all mean?
A Type 45 Destroyer replacement based on the Type 26 would provide a tangible means to meet the aspiration of continuously producing two standard classes of ships for the Royal Navy, allowing for a more sustainable UK shipbuilding industry.
As I’ve said time and time again, the UK needs a better way to effectively sustain its shipbuilding industry, let’s hope we’re heading in that direction.
‘It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.’
This would be very good news indeed.
It’s not news, this is one mans biased wishes.
Exactly.
Please explain.
It is the wishes of the person that the author interviewed.
IIRC Mr Sweeney is a bit of a champion of the Clyde and has a bee in his bonnet about the heinous BETRAYAL that some Tory bastards committed upon the Clyde and Scotland by breaking the solemn promise that 13 frigates would be built in Scotland without ever mentioning that there are actually 13 being built with plenty of export orders to come.
He is economical with the truth and has an agenda, he is also a civilian who has no access or knowledge of what is being planned.
He is a liar.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic with the ‘betrayal’ if the Clyde, I hope you are
Indeed, those are his words I think.
if we are looking at construction beginning around 2030 – should we be looking at sampson? surely should be able to make something even better by then – specially with all this talk about the tempests new radar lately
Continuing to use Sampson beyond T45 seems questionable. Major navies are moving to fixed panel AESA radar for X-, S- and L-band solutions, even on general purpose frigates, let alone AAW focused platforms. Modern advances with GaN as opposed to GaAs transmit-receive modules should allow high placement of panels for earlier sea skimmer detection. The Australian Hunter class based on T26 is one relevant example going in this direction and the updates to their older Anzac class now use fixed panels for L-band and S-band with X-band illuminators.
to be honest i have no problem with the rotating dual panel design – it can pretty much cover the whole sky – and unless the panels sizes are tiny should always provide a couple of meters extra elevation – but i have to figure newer tech could provide better fidelity, range and anti stealth capabilities
the australian t26 version does seem to be the elephant in the room though as pretty sure its an anti air platform as well as anti submarine
that said capable as the ship might be is it BIG enough to take on the destroyer role – bigger ships are more survivable they can take more hits before they sink and the navy has traditionally always replaced vessels with larger hulls presumably for this reason
Up to now and for a good while yet Sampson is fine IMO, but it is likely to be outclassed as you suggest with newer tech by the time we are designing its replacement. Once we are down to just a few meters in radar height difference it translates to very short difference in detection time. The good news for the RN is that there should be a good selection of proven fixed panel solutions from the US, Oz and Europe by the time the design comes around.
The larger ships in part are being driven by room to expand for future upgrades, easier maintenance and improved crew quarters for retention. This was part of the appeal of the T31 based on Iver Huitfeldt, which also provides a more stable platform for air ops inc UAVs, USVs and UUVs launch and recovery.
the t31 is a good design – its just a shame about the missile loadout – 12 sea ceptors is pitiful – wouldn’t be quite as bad if it was 12 mk41 strike length launchers then could quad pack in the sea ceptors maybe even a few antiship missiles – 24 or god forbid 32 mk 41’s would make it a seriously credible warship
The 12 CAMM plus the capabilities of the 57mm are fine for a light frigate role IMO. However, the T31 is a great example of how a larger ship might be upgraded relatively quickly.
Provided there is power, cooling and controls circuits as required supplied to the weapons platform mid-ship and the Tacticos CMS supports them, then there are several options.
Perhaps surprisingly that could provide similar fire power to French and Italian GP FREMMs in their current configurations.
The trouble is they wont be fitted with all this kit will they? This always happens; the T45s being a case in point. Daring was commissioned in 2009, 11 years ago and neither she nor any of the others have been fully kitted out despite being fitted ‘for but not with’ and it doesn’t seem as though there are any intentions at the moment to do otherwise. Unless and until we have a government/MoD willing to properly kit out ships then the T31e will just repeat this pattern.
The F-35s would be capable of carrying Storm Shadow as well but they wont be integrated, I have no doubt, primarily to save a few £million, despite the enormous tactical ability that would offer a CSG commander.
StormShadow isn’t being integrated because it’s getting old. It’s replacement, and considerably more flexible weapons will be integrated such as the Spear family of weapons.
Extra CAMM and MK41 won’t be fitted if they are not needed, why would they be for a light frigate role? That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be fitted in the world changes for the worst.
As to T45 – if you are referring to the FFBNW MK41 then why fit it when there are no weapons currently qualified for it that the UK would want to commit to at this stage? Tomahawk is at end of life, ASROC is too limited in range and heli launched Sting Ray is more effective; we don’t need ESSM and SM-2.
In addition to Robert’s comment on Storm Shadow aging out, it also couldn’t be added to F-35 until at least Block 4 in 2026 or later. FCASW is the current plan for a UK land and sea target attack missile.
in peace time yes we dont need those mk41’s but by that reasoning we dont need any weapons on any of our frigates
been a long time since the navy fired its weapons in anger – point is they need to be a credible warship so that if we ever do need them it wont take the better part of a decade arming up all the ships
Its not so much a peacetime issue regarding fitting MK41 capability to T31 currently as it is not having any MK41 missiles qualified, and not wanting to adopt any of the current crop, except possibly at the higher end SM-6 and SM-3 level, which aren’t relevant for T31. That situation will probably change as T26 becomes operational later in the decade and as the US in particular is likely to ramp up its missile capabilities.
as i understand it seaceptor can be quad packed into the mk41 – thats its main use – its would also give it options in the future – history has told us that whatever the ship leaves the yard with is what it will have until its decommissioned – even a measly 12 mk41 would drastically increase its air self defence capabilities while adding in some possible antiship or land attack weapons
Sea Ceptor, or more specifically the CAMM missile, has several major advantages. One of them is cold launch. So yes, CAMM can be quad packed in a MK41 VLS, but its a waste of investment in a MK41 VLS designed for hot launch missiles to quad pack them with CAMM, when a low cost frame is all that’s required.
As to only 12 missiles, it may be surprising but Italy only has16 Sylver cells fitted as standard in their FREMM. The new French FTI frigate and Italian PPA frigates also only have 16 cells. Sure they can fit Aster 15 and Aster 30 for more capability but still only 16 missiles unless either uses CAMM.
Regarding the Italian PPA Class,it looks like the Full and Light + versions will indeed use Aster 15/30/B1NT,but the Light versions will be Configured/FFBNW to use CAAM-ER,SYLVER A70 VLS being Standard accross all versions.
Cold launch has big advantages when it comes to cleaning up afterwards, not having surfaces burnt off, and having a massive toxic exhaust cloud to contend with.
Yes, and peace can end in 24 hours, or even 12. By the time the status change is appreciated, a navy could be wiped out.
The Type 31e will require a far better AA fit or simply be destroyed very early on in any conflict. The Danish vessels completely outclass our meagre proposal.
The Danish vessels were built to fulfil the same role as the Type 45s. We are simply sharing the base design. To expect the Type 31 to compete with a frontline warship is unrealistic.
If it was given a decent weapons fit, why not? The design is proven, but the UK has chosen not to take advantage of that, and instead opted for a very expensive OPV.
It is just about the cheapest ship you can get for the role it is required to fulfil. Matching the weapons fit of the Iver-Huitfeld class would mean cutting ship numbers even further and ending up with a lack of low end power projection ships.
As to your ‘very expensive OPV’ comment, which OPV embarks 60 Royal Marines, has a multi mission bay, has 12+ local area/self defence missiles, has an endurance of
17,000km, a plethora of guns for close-in self defence against fast attack craft, can reach 30 knots, can permanently embark a Merlin-sized helicopter and has the space and capability to be up-gunned if required?
The point of the T31 is to keep the cost affordable, we can no longer carry on spending £1billion + for one warship, and T31 will be very adaptable, and will be upgradable. It will be very capable for the lower end day to day operations.
When you initially look at the Type31e it looks like an ideal Blue water OPV/ policing vessel. Ideal for drugs and piracy etc, and maybe in the straits of Hormuz providing there is no shooting going on. It cannot undertake NGS, has no offensive anti-ship missile capability, and with only 12 sea ceptor has a very very limited Air to Air capability (in reality probably 6 shots). Due to the very limited number of Merlins, its very unlikely a Type31e will ever embark one, other than for public relations, effectively ruling out any anti-submatine capability, plus we have a shortage of Wildcats, so cannot guarantee an embarked helicopter.
So in peacetime, it seems ideal as a deep water policing vessel, but the problem comes when the shooting war starts, what role does it have then? A question which because we are desperate for new hulls is quietly being ignored.
The gun fit may come in handy in last ditch defence, but it could easily be overwhelmed in an air attack, or indeed missile attack. You also have to remember the world has moved on a long way since 1982 when we lost 4 warships, and came close to losing more. The Iranians for example have a good number of very well equipped patrol boats able to engage much bigger vessels at range with very capable long range anti-ship missiles. We have a good, proven design, but we are failing to capitalise on that at present and history has shown we will continue to do so until such time as we are forced to go there…….
And the Danish vessel is their only frontline warships.
Must admit I don’t have any real appreciation of the direct connotations here but having read this week that at the time we are about to utilise them the US is feeling the MK 41 isn’t large enough to house future (in particular hypersonic) missiles gives me some concern and they are discussing moving towards the Mk57. Geez and some are moaning about only having 48 type 41s on their new Frigates anyway. They seem to be debating as to go Mk57 so that the larger Hypersonic missiles under development can be fitted of wait under the expectation that smaller missiles will be developed. That said that particular argument may be moot anyway when comes to arming our next gen ships who knows. Anyone more knowledgable have a view about this?
You are probably referring to National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien’s “plan” to fit hypersonic missiles to all the B1, B2 and B3 Burke’s? Some comments on it at –
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/signaling-china-white-house-floats-putting-hypersonic-missiles-on-destroyers/
Aside from the impracticability of ripping out some (presumably not all) of the MK41 from every Burke in order to fit a larger launcher, there’s also the issue of whether these ships need a hypersonic attack missile capability in their role. The impracticalities aren’t trivial for a navy that is already struggling to maintain and upgrade its ships and include cost, lack of dockyard resources, impact on ship ship’s center of gravity and center of buoyancy.
As far as the UK and most other western allied navies are concerned we don’t even launch land attack missiles from VLS and if we want to do that in future then MK41 Strike length or Sylver A70 should be fine for something like FCASW, if navies don’t stick with deck mounted canisters.
May I ask, why not (for example) 3 GaN AESA panels rotating; lighter than the 6+ fixed panel system, with the benefits of the latest hardware?
It would seem to me the logical progression of the SAMPSON front end, but I’m not a radar expert so don’t know if it’s feasible…
I’m not a radar expert either Joe 🙂 Here’s my understanding. If a solution used 3 panels then it shouldn’t need to rotate and could maintain constant 360 degree coverage as fixed panels. For example, the new USN FFG(X) frigate will mount a fixed SPY-6 three panel array. The trade offs in a future radar system for the UK will be one of size of sensors (=capability), weight at height, power, cooling and which wavebands are considered desirable/necessary. For example the larger the radar panel, the more transmit-receive modules, the greater range and ability to detect and discriminate targets. However, large panels drive increased weight, power and cooling demands that mitigate against high mounting.
Consider the Hunter class and the Anzac upgrade that precedes it. The Anzac has replaced its high rotating L-band with fixed panel L-band. It has fixed panel S-band below that and X-band flat panel illuminators for the semi active ESSM and SM-2 missiles. Hunter class probably won’t need X-band iluminators as the ESSM and SM-2 should have active seeker upgrades by then. However, Hunter may still retain X-band for greater discrimination for small surface targets.
Sea Viper uses Aster with active seekers so no X-band illuminator requirement. S-band Sampson addresses surveillance and targeting while the S1850M L-band is long range volume search. So the only X-band is Type 1047 surface search and navigation on T45.
Going with flat panels eliminates any reliability issues with a rotating sensor and ensures continuous 360 coverage across all bands. Fixed panels aren’t a one-size fits all. Modern radars are building the panel from modules, SPY-6 for example uses 2’x2′ blocks to build different size panel arrays based on ship function, Leonardo and Thales are producing similar scalable arrays using modular blocks. I understand CEAFAR 2 is the same.
So for T4X. Does the RN stick with dual masts for rotating S- and L-band? Keep S-band rotating with fixed panel L-band in a single mast? Go fixed S- and L-band only in a single mast, or add in X-band as well? Part of that calculus also comes down to using other sensors for long range threats such as hypersonic missiles. For example using LEO satellites and CSG organic AEW/F-35 to detect heat blooms from hypersonic missiles might provide a better solution than using larger L-band arrays on the ship.
After all that though it comes down to what is relevant in 15+ years for AAW destroyer defence? With every other major western navy choosing more expensive fixed panels for new platforms, it seems unlikely it will be rotating solutions.
Thanks for the rundown- you may not consider yourself an expert but you have greater knowledge than I do!
Yes, many things for the designers to consider- most of them likely that we won’t hear about until they’re in service!
Given how good Sampson is, and how good the CEAFAR system on the Hunters is supposed to be, I have confidence that we’ll make a good selection. I think our problem has always been more about programme and cost control rather than the quality of the equipment, by and large.
I understand that Australia was one of the consortium members for ESSM that insisted on a dual seeker for Block II missiles. They wanted to keep the semi-active option available due to the greater control by the CMS & ship borne radars & the fact that it’s harder to jam or confuse a high powered ship radar/CMS than the small active radar & processor in a missile. X band is not dead yet.
To my mind this is the only way to go. In hindsight knowing the kind of financial pressure that’s been exacted on the MoD and RN over the last couple of decades it was folly to pursue a bespoke AAW platform in T45 and then a bespoke ASW platform with T26.
Luckily T26 is a large and flexible enough design to pursue a continuous build program of truly all-round ‘combat ships’.
As the article advocates having a frigate factory on The Clyde and a T31 line up and running will give the RN a good mix of high/lower-end platforms, provide economies of scale and design continuity to keep costs down and increase the prospect of exports once customers can choose between designs of different cost/capability and know they can slot orders into our construction tempo without big delays, as France has managed to do with FREMM.
Given the T31 is based on a Danish AA destroyer, perhaps they should consider a variant of that to replace T45, and then extend the T26 line with a Batch 2 follow on. Have both yards producing a new vessel every two years, but staggered, so one year a T31, and then the following year a T26, etc… This would mean the T26 design is maintained and focuses on ASW and the GP T31 Hull forms the basis for T4x, and a steady drumbeat of a new warship every year into the fleet.
Isn’t a big reason of the Type 45’s size due to the size and weight of its radars? I’m fairly certain if there’s doubts a Type 26’s hull could fit them a Type 31’s certainly could not.
Honestly not sure. Looking at the dimensions of T26 v T31, they are broadly similar in Beam (21v20) and Draught (7 for both), only length is different (152m for T26, 139m for T32). Would Sampson still be the radar of choice by the time the T45s need replacing? Possibly the Aussie Radar, CEAFAR, might be an option?
I think radar tech should stay UK-developed, it’s one of the things we’re actually good at. The Tempest program claims to have a powerful radar (in terms of data transmission), as does the next ECRS MK2 for the Typhoons.
Problem is that Typhoon/Tempest and other air radars are developed by Leonardo in Scotland, while Sampson and Artisan are a BAES product. Leonardo Italy do have a modern naval fixed panel AESA radar, Kronos Dual Band, comprising Kronos Quad that is designed to work with PAAMS and Kronos StarFire. It doesn’t seem to include any UK IP though. Both Quad and StarFire can be scaled up in size as required for the application.
The problem with BAES is that they don’t seem to see a business in developing “off-the-shelf” radar like Leonardo, Thales, Hensoldt etc which means using the defence budget to pay BAES to develop a new radar when everyone else already has one.
Leonardo Dual Band details: https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151844/mm08766_KRONOS_Dual_Band_LQ.pdf?t=1538987896420
Some interesting information, thanks for sharing. Would it not be worth investing a portion of the defence budget in a BAE home grown radar if it means we can maintain/regain our position in having the most advanced+capable ship-borne radar?
Part of me wants to invest in a UK high tech enterprise. The problem is who will BAES sell a high end radar to? Not the US (SPY-6 seems destined for every application), France (Thales), Italy (Leonardo), Germany (Hensold), Australia (CEA Tech.). Canada, Spain, Norway are all US supply focused and we’re too late for Canada and probably Spain anyway. I suspect this is why BAES haven’t been focused on the radar market, especially with their focus on US and Commonwealth countries for ship sales. Arab states are unlikely to want the high end ships that would need the radar.
Not size and weight of radar per se. It’s morethe size and weight of the mast the radar is on.
Yep, I was referring to the mast too when I referred to the radar, as one package.
The mast itself is fibreglass.
The effective turning moment from weight at the top of the mast increases with the height of the mast. It is simple lever arm physics. The longer the lever the bigger the effect of the same mass….
So although the mast is, I think, heavier than the lump on top. It is the lump in top that drives stability.
Physics indeed. Now geography. Most of the sky can be seen from low down, so why not have big 3D radar panels low down, and a small 2D horizon only radar high up?
Warfare indeed.
Try telling that to anyone down South in ‘82 and they might just tell you that radar horizon and detecting sea skimmers in time to react is rather important as well as detecting high flying……
The whole problem in ‘82 was that radar could see high flying planes perfectly well (and generally Guide missiles to shoot them down too) but not sea skimming planes and not Exocet and its ilk.
So yup, I’d rather have a high radar mast: thanks all the same.
Seems to me BAES has at least two bites at this.
If BAES can deliver an inflation adjusted cost reduction for Batch 2 T26 then that helps their case for a T4X continuation using the T26 as the base design.
It is not inconceivable that MOD could go for 3 batches of T26 i.e. 3+3+2 with the last batch of two potentially increasing to 3, if BAES make it attractive enough through savings on both the intermediate B2 and the B3 builds. Its not like we will have too many ASW focused platforms. If that happens then it would be likely to really help the BAES cause for the T4X follow on. BAES should be able to leverage experience on the Hunter and Canadian Surface Combatant programs for T4X, both of which will include AAW fixed panel radar orientated builds, which seem likely to be the future fit for AAW.
If BAES cannot deliver cost savings on T26 over the remaining 5 ships, then an AAW variant of T31 becomes an option in competition to a T26 based T4X build. BAES would still have an advantage that T4X would start from a build intrinsically designed for low signature. It would not necessarily include all the acoustic reduction measures of T26 in order to reduce cost, but it may not make commercial sense to spend money actively removing others. So clearly a more advanced platform than T31 derived build but probably still at a premium.
The main problem is size. The T26 is already approximately the same size as the T45. This is important if you want to use something like Sampson at a similar height. There is also the possibility of deleting the mission bay in favour of boat bays & missiles. ie there is space that can be converted for more weapons. An AAW Destroyer has less need for multi-mission bays & 2nd helicopters than a Frigate. The IH frigate utilised the space now converted into additional boat bays on T31 to fit mk56 vls for ESSM. The planned Canadian version of the T26 already carries similar load-out to the IH frigate without touching the mission bay.
the T31 would be too small for a future AA destroyer platform, due to the size, would restrict energy generation capacity for future DEW weapons.
A T45 size vessel could accommodate 2 MT30 generators.
Type 31 is designed to have easily upgradeable engines, lots of extra room with easy access.
Something the Type45 doesn’t do to the same degree.
The truth is any follow on batch optimised for AAW will probably have a hull plug down the middle, just to increase the length and therefore the stern to bow stability when cutting through high sea states, as required to mount the mast even higher and deliver the progress we like to see every 20 years.
With the demographic time bomb – it will come down to what’s most cost effective.
I don’t think you can stretch the T26 anymore (& I don’t think you would need to). T31, maybe, but why would you? There are limits to stretching ships (L x B ratio etc) after which you will create more problems than you will solve.
If T26 had the beam to length ratio of the T45 it’d be half a metre longer.
If Arrowhead 140 had the same ratio it would be 3.3m longer.
The Arleigh Burke’s were lengthened roughly a metre.
Hull plugs are definitely doable. It seems A140 is best placed to be hull plugged, up engined, up armed, up everything.
Cheaper too.
The problem preventing a Type 26 stretch is not length to breadth, it’s the length to depth that’s at its limit. Stretching is out of the question.
Good to know.
Given recent history I would think two ships at £6 billion each ,four years late, fitted for but not with and built in Korea. Who are you calling cynical?
Seriously, a very logical idea but for heavens sake let’s get this build right. We need eight or ten ships with all the kit onboard from the outset. Fund them right ,build them right and on time.
What recent history is that Geoffrey?
Andy….without digging too deeply into my memory banks…Type 45,s reduced from 14 to 10 to 8 to 6, delivered under powered,no land attack silo’s or SSM’s; Type 26 cut from 13 to 8; Type 31’s delayed; and will be under armed; carriers at double their original cost estimate, with only a handful of aircraft available; FSSS delayed twice. I could go on. Procurement for all the services is shambolic.
Why would we have needed 14 AA T45 destroyers? Could it be because the navy grossly under inflated the cost from the outset? Likewise the T26, hence the more realistic cost and capability of the T31.
Given the increasing cost and necessary size of a ship carrying these proposed directed energy weapons it strikes me will are probably only going to require and afford 4 straight replacements to the T45. With these linked to our carriers.
Trevor/Andy.
..you don’t both work for the MOD by any chance.
We were going to replace the City class on a one for one basis , hence fourteen.. You reckon four replacements for the six T45’s…so your 4 are never going to be in refit or needed elsewhere presumably. Only having 6 barely allows us to keep both carriers active. In passing I might add that the navy does not design and cost ships ..it operates them.
How anyone can say that the T31 is a triumph is beyond me. Read the article again Carrier Alliance.. nothing wrong with the group but explain how the carrier cost doubled. Answer. Delays, government indecision. Dreadnought..Fine. I didn’t mention it.
How can I blame the government for mistakes made decades ago. Firstly I didn’t mention the government either but since you did.. ..in the last fifteen years, less than two decades, we have had the shambles of Labour cuts, followed by the disaster of SDR 2010, which had nothing to do with defence and everything to do with money followed by SDR 2015 when the government tried to put right it’ own mistakes and mostly failed. The only person to get to grips with some of the problems was Gavin Williamson.and he’s gone.
Come on guys…look at the facts of UK defence over the twenty years in particular and then tell me every things alright.
I think you should give credit where it is due.
– Type 31, it’s a triumph. Any rational person knows this.
– carrier alliance, likewise
– dreadnought
Maybe other can chip in?
How can u blame the government or moD for mistakes made decades ago? Despite the fact that procurement has been overhauled and government changed several times?
Mmm think its too early to consider the Type 31 as a success,Construction has yet to begin but the signs look sort of promising so far.Also the Carriers,as good as they are were delivered significantly over Budget,£3.9 Billion for both was never going to be enough.
Is there enough space on a Type 26 to have a useful number of long range SAM’s or would it require stretching? I’m guessing it’ll need more than the current 48 cells on a Type 45…
Seems to be too small, world class destroyers are over 10,000 tons now. And if we are going for smaller ones then why not use the Type 31.
You could convert the multi mission bay into a missile silo for TLAM and anti balastic missiles. I also believe the Canadian and Australian ships will have 48 mk41s. Short range missiles can be quad packed so capacity will not be the issue but buying enough missiles to fill them.
The last number I heard was at most 32 Mk41 VLS, unless they’re planning to convert the boat bay into a VLS farm. I don’t think the Type 26 design has the space for 48. Forwards of the bridge there’s the 24 Mk41 cells closest to the bridge, then 24 CAMM cells (British version) forwards of that.
On the Aussie ships the plan is for a further 8 MK41 cells instead of the forwards Sea Ceptor, but many have expressed concern over length constraints of those cells, which would explain the Sea Ceptor instead of more Mk41s for the British version.
RCN and RAN GCS ships each have 32 Mk41 strike length cells forward of the bridge. The RAN do not use Sea Ceptor, nor shown an interest in it as they use ESSM in the same role, using CIWS as their PD system.
The RCN are using the ExLS launcher, giving a compact loadout of 24 CAMM in addition to their comprehensive AAW, ASuW and NFS outfit.
The RN are using Sea Ceptor as their LAD/SD missile system, so the 24 Mk41 cells are purely for their future fit FASGW strike missile.
24 Mk41 cells purely for an anti-ship/land attack missile is somewhat excessive, wouldn’t you think? Especially for an ASW frigate.
Probably more efficient than using Astute as your only offensive platform other than the Strike Carrier.
I’ve never been involved in Tomahawk mission planning, but, as FASGW is also ASuW missile, then 24 would certainly put a dent in any “insert generic enemy with large surface fleet here” Surface Action Group.
I take your point that it’s more than we’ve been used to, but times change and numbers of strike weapons are important for mission success.
There is also a need for some form of anti-submarine missile that would also go in the mk41, unless they go for the Italian deck canister launched one. CAAM is also rather short ranged, so unless the individual CAAM cells can take CAAM-ER, you would probably want to quad pack some of those in the mk41.
Isn’t this article a retread? Did not Mr Sweeny not make his case to stop T31 and replace their construction with T26s for political purposes?
Is not an AA verson of the T26 going to be too small for the power it would need for large electrical power? Let alone tall enough?
Its plausible to build some version of the T26… (4?) a ‘heavy frigate’, a general purpose version along the lines of the Australian version of the T26. But really for the future, my understanding is that we will need at least 4 large AA destroyers to work with the carriers.
Exactly.
At least 4 seeing how much time warships spend in maintenance and refit, The last batch of T26 needs to be 5 to get on with it.
The next AAW ship will need to be bigger than the Type 45s to support more VLS and greater power generation for ship based lasers. The Type 26 is too small unless the mission bay is sacrificed for further strike length VLS.
Exactly.
The requirements for an AA ship 20 years from now are far removed from anything the T26 can handle.
And everyone waves their arms around and shouts “imagine the savings if we carry on with a Type 26 derivative”. What savings? In practice little or none.
Ships are not built on a production line like cars where the more you make the cheaper they can get. Not even close. They are built one at a time by hand. And the relative costs of designing a new ship are rather small in comparison to the total that will have to be spent. Well worth it to keep UK ship design skills alive and healthy. The skills that have won huge orders in Australia and Canada for the T26 design. Unlike the sheet bashing skills that have won exactly zero exports.
This guy will say anything to get more work to his Scottish constituents, “biassed” hardly covers it.
Agreed. Not to mention fitting a Type 45s’ (or its future derivative’s) Radar and weapons suite onto a Type 26 hull would require a substantial redesign above the waterline anyways to support the size and weight, so the economies of scale (negligible when building ~14 ships) wouldn’t be achieved due to the distinct designs.
Basing the future destroyer off of the Type 45’s hull would at least be a better starting point; it is a design from the keel up intended to support a very heavy ship based radar and weapons suite.
Yes. I would go all in and replace T45s with 2 or 3 (4?) 15000+ tonne ships with enhanced flight deck to both provide AA weapon space and room for helicopters and ’emergency’ or ‘temporary’ F35s. This ought to leave numbers for 2-4 ‘heavy’ GP frigates… irrespective of it being T31 or T26 based.
How is an F35 going to take off?
To do a vertical take off it has to have virtually no fuel load and no munitions on board.
It depends on the design of the ship (and its exact size) and my point was as an ’emergency or ‘ferrying’ role.
It seems likely that a full fat AA destroyer would be at least 10,000 tonnes, probably more. So something larger still may be more versatile, and more adaptable as years go by.
Correct.
I’m disappointed with this article and its repeat of all of Sweeney’s comments.
As a Type 45 replacement, the Type 26 hull would need to be stretched by an extra 10 to 15 metres in my opinion to accommodate more VLS / solid state weapons and be suitable as a candidate for a possible Arleigh Burke replacement.
The T26 is already at the L/D limit so stretching is not an option as the Australians have found out.
I assume that the type 26 hull design and noise dampening engineering that is used to help hunt subs is equally desirable in avoiding being hunted by subs.
Hunter will have 5″ gun plus 32 VLS plus canister anti ship. Im assuming that going to say a 76 or 56 main gun (given mission of type 4X) and removing towed sonar equipment and much of multi mission bay will allow space and weight savings to get to 42 to 48 vls. If so…
Allocate 12 for quad packed CAMM next reiteration.. (48 aam)
Allocate 20+ for a dual (or triple or quad ?) packed VLS extended range version of meteor….(40 aam)
Allocate 12+ VLS for whatever comes in way of Perseus type solution
Allows for 88++ aam plus 12 anti ship / land strike plus commonality / drum beat with type 26.
Future versions of type 31 can then have the 5″ NGS capability as part of its GP role.
P
in the age of hypersonic weapons – would it not make sense to look at WWII submarines as inspiration for a barely submersible frigate – 20m down and your safe from most antiship missiles hypersonic or not – perhaps not great for defending carriers but for solo operations…..
Yes. Submersibles, does not even need to go to 100m depth. It indeed possible that the age of manned surface combat ships is near end.
I mean, I know the silent service keep the noise down – but they do exist!
We do have a fleet of submarines you know..
The other elephant in the room with future destroyer designs is the potential renaissance of the gun. Their performance and range is now making them more attractive, and often cheaper than missiles for certain roles. Talk of the US taking out cruise missiles with a 155mm, rail guns, laser weapons, plus new designs of CIWS guns. A lot more deck and hull space may be required to fit multiple types in, leading to a need for designs 10k tonnes plus. I don’t know how much the current T26 or T45 hulls can be safely stretched?
The way I see it, we should maybe look at two classes of ship. We currently have no proper GP ships with rounded capabilities and armaments that can sail into hot zones alone and fight in all spheres.
Maybe we should look at a smaller cheaper AAW only design based on the T31 which is purely for carrier/amphibious group AAW protection. Then we have a larger cruiser type vessel which is AAW, BMD, ASW and land attack, and feature a full suite of missiles and guns to deal with any situation. These ships can be slotted into the fleet wherever most needed – added to a carrier group to upgrade the BMD/AAW capability in certain environments, sail alone to carry out a large TLAM style attack like we saw in Syria etc etc. The Swiss army knife of the fleet, and can fill in for other specialist ships during refits/breakdowns without loosing any capability.
Cost wise, an adequate AAW version of T31 should be doable for around £700 million, have 5 for £3.5 billion. Fleet of cruisers at £1.5 billion each x3 for 4.5 billion. Total cost £8 billion which is about what we spend for a class of T45/T26 now, but we get 2 extra hugs and a few proper GP ships. Basically a high low mix as we are doing in our frigate fleet.
https://i.redd.it/77dm2qgnt1551.png
Sorry link didn’t go as planned but this is an Impression of a possible Future DDX Destroyer for the Italian Navy,it fits exactly what you describe as a ‘Swiss Army Knife’,10.000 + Tonnes with pretty much the Full Spectrum of Capabilities as you mention.
Whilst it sounds like a great idea on paper, to keep the production running (although the f35 has shown common platforms for different dedicated platforms might not be a good idea), there is zero chance of it happening.
The t45 needs to go through the traditional tender, cancel tender, re-tender, reassessment of capability needs, SDSR delay, order cut process before it can start being built, which my guess won’t happen until after the t26 order is near complete.
The issue regarding MK41 is moot. It has already been overtaken by the Mk 57 VLS launcher. Its longer and can take bigger missiles. It doesnt need a flooding system and you can fit it in blocks of 4 around the edges of a vessel unlike the Mk41 which is usually a solid block in the center. Any future T45 replacement would in all likelihood use this system.
The length of a VL tube isnt an issue.
Look at the T45 and T23. The silos on those vessels are not flush with the deck . The top portion “pokes out”above the main deck and is surrounded by a Silo deck structure. This is a very British solution that works. It enables you to keep less of the stuff that goes woosh and bang inside the main hull structure where, should there be an incident, it would cause untold damage.
Regarding VLS silos and numbers. The “48 VLS on aT45 is rubbish compared to a Arleighs 96” is often spouted.
However size isn’t everything, its what you do with it that counts
Most AAW missiles on ABs (SM2) are semi active homers requiring target illumination from a vessel. As this is a less effective system than say an Aster which is an active homer, you usually would go for a salvo shot of 2 missiles per target. When you also consider that the AB carries ASROC in the tubes and possibly land attack tomahawk the actual available missiles per aircraft is probably less than that embarked on a T45.
For surface ship warfare most ABs dont have anti ship missiles. No harpoon and anti ship tomahawk is no longer in the inventory. SM6 will be an active homer with a surface attack capability but that is just coming on stream now. Some ABs dont even have aircraft hangers and cannot embark helos and they dont have phalanx fitted as standard.
So using a T26 hull form may be a good starting point especially when economies of scale come into it for internal equipment such as engines, vent, generators, etc. The MK 57 silo would be an incremental and flexible step up from the Mk 41 and could be fitted/ shoehorned in to a lot more areas.
Its also worth considering that a recent report regarding the FREMM frigates that the USN is ordering stated that the costs have been grossly underestimated by approx 20-40 % per vessel. Following the initial batch of FREMMS I would not be surprised to see the USN revisit the Frigate and AB replacement programmes with a view to adopting a T26 based solution that is being employed by its major allies( UK, AUS, CAN). The cost of a T26 solution would prpobably be less than the FREMM by then.
Yeah, as long as BAE can meet cost and production targets for T26, then the USN may come looking I suppose. I hadn’t realised that FFG/X/FREMM was that far out on cost. Could that be partly to do with transferring European building types to US yards? My understanding is that they’ve pretty much only been building ABs for the last 30-odd years, and they’ve not had a lot of investment recently…
Would you take Mk57 over Sylver then? With all of our missile systems being European (I’m assuming that whatever SAM we choose for T4X will be an MBDA/ASter development), wouldn’t that make more sense?
I must say I worry about whether the T26 hull can be stretched enough for a future full-fat AAW destroyer, unless we move away from that concept for a less gold plated approach. I can’t help but think that, with stealthy platforms operated by adversaries, UAV and missile swarms being a thing of the near future, we’ll be looking for 100+ VLS tubes- some with quad packing for the shorter ranged stuff, and possibly greater gun armament à la T31 too…
I am sure it would, but it probably won’t be after the US completely re design it to ‘suit’ their needs which Im sure is why the FREMM costs are skyrocketing. Unless one of the 3 T26 designs suits them better, which in the case of the Canadian with plenty of US sourced tech and no doubt a similar philosophy I suppose just might.
If the FFG(X) comes in at 40% increase then congress may turn around and tell them to build more Blk 3 Burke’s instead. Ref Mk57 it does beg the question as to why the Blk 3 Burke’s aren’t switching to them? That is before the idea of putting hypersonic attack missiles on every Burke reared its head recently, which would require them.
Maybe this isn’t the case, I don’t know, but couldn’t we just base this off the Type 45 hull design and build new ones of that?
If size is a problem then that could be am answer potentially.
Could the Type 26 hold the 48 VLS missiles that the Type 45 currently does? Is there space enough to arm it fully for its AA role?
Keep the steady drumbeat idea going but for both types, Type 26 and T4X, and instead of all new classes of ships later on just leep churning them out and evolving each batch.
Morning Steve…..my thoughts exactly…….the hull seems to work well….it’s the right size……engine problems now sorted……upgrade war fighting capability to 2030 standards and make sure it can fight and defend…..
Realistically we need to get away from dedicated platforms, as we just don’t have the hull numbers for it.
We need vessels that can fill all roles.
I mean just the hull and basic design, though. Type 45 is large enough that it would be more versatile than Type 26.
Though a vessel that can fill all roles will inevitably cost more than dedicated platforms.
Steve
I understand that BAE indicated to Australia that the T26 could go to 64 vls. Australia currently uses mk41. Exactly how is not public, but if you were creating a T4x, my guess would be getting rid of the mission bay for a couple of boat bays with a missile silo in between as per the A140 (export T31).
The main missile problems with the current T45, is lack of quad packable missiles. Personally I would be putting 4 ExLS systems (12 quad packable cells) into the space reserved for mk41 (way cheaper), to give another 48 missiles (CAAM).
Well the US ‘FREMMS’ will so I sure that the Type 26 could too if it was deemed desirable (whatever criteria you chose for that word).
On the face of it good news, but also a few reservations:
I see the following possible options for the Type 45 replacement:
– Stretch the Type 26 hull.
– Use the existing Type 45 hull to create a quieter and updated variant.
– New designs submitted by BAE, BMT and Babcock.
– Use the Tide Class hull (as part of a common 200m hull) that will be used to replace all RFA, Albion and Ocean class vessels, to also create 200m long destroyers that can accommodate a very large quantity of VLS, storage, space for batteries, solid state weapons, unmanned ships / vehicles and most crucially the space and strength to accommodate future BMD radar.
Why your great desire to use an existing hull? Hull design is dirt cheap. Reusing old designs saves nothing.
The idea would be that way it’s an evolution of the ship rather than brand new clean sheet designs. Keeps up the drumbeat of production without having to go back to the drawkng board every 15-20 years.
Evolve the ships. Each batch has newer systems and improvements.
As I understand it, trying to design needs around a existing platform often results in a sub-par vessel (especially if it’s a hullform not designed for that vessel type) that’s still as expensive as a clean sheet design, because the work has to be put into fudging requirements into the existing design, instead of giving yourself a fresh piece of paper (metaphorically speaking) to work with.
Unless the requirements are really similiar (eg Type 31 and Ivar Huitsfelt) it’s a false economy.
The Government will be constrained by money and time and will feel under pressure to deliver ships on time, budget and retain jobs. Poor decisions and lack of planning have resulted in our fleet getting smaller and unit costs larger whilst our adversaries are increasing ship numbers. I would prefer a new hull but can’t see that happening under this Government based on the form of past defence procurements.
A lot of comments suggesting a larger AAW destroyer will be required to carry more missiles. However that seems to overlook an increasing threat from very capable submarines, possessed by an increasing number of countries, in increasing numbers. We probably ought to be thinking about potential attrition. While we’re on that topic, leveraging a quiet ASW platform on what would clearly be a high value target doesn’t seem to be a bad idea, as well as giving it a more capable ASW role if required.
Not going to delve into the maneuvering hypersonic missile threat of the future, I’ve discussed it many times before, beyond saying if one gets through the defences, most of which it can bypass coming in vertically, it may be a ship kill even on a large escort. Using a T31/T26 size vessel in greater numbers avoids all the eggs in one basket and also provides flexibility to provide more AAW in more places simultaneously.
As an example, the T26 already has the equivalent of 36 Mk41 cells, i.e. 24 Mk41 and 48 dedicated Sea Ceptor CAMM cells if quad packed.
The key to leveraging an increased number of smaller platforms will be CEC. Not necessarily what it is today but what it may become as a sensor fused image of the battlespace in the air, on the surface and under the surface, available to every ship in the battlegroup carrying offensive and defensive systems.
Could the idea be to keep the escorts sized as now, but install VLS on a cheap hull to create an arsenal type ship? It could be fully automated and controlled from a mission room of an escort or carrier. No bridge or crew quarters would allow a flat top and many cells that could be fired using CEC and the escorts radar and targeting kit. With far fewer electronic systems to run, it could have the power margin to have a wacking great laser on it to protect the task group as well.
Taking the idea of smaller platforms further, are we not close to a point where automated ships are on the horizon? Why build a fleet of 8-10k tonne frigates and destroyers to protect the carriers?
My vision for the future would be a fleet of automated ships of around 2-3k tonnes, with bolt in weapons and sensor modules to forefill a variety of roles. Something like 8 would sail with the carrier on deployment, all controlled from within the carrier. 2 would have a towed array, and 8 cell vls for Asroc. 2 would have decent radar and 24 vls with a range of AAW missiles. 2 would have anti ship missiles and an offensive gun. 2 would have a laser type weapon and defensive CIWS guns. The.mix could be adjusted to suite the enemy capabilities.
The carrier would be upgraded with a Sampson radar, and be shadowed by an arsenal ship, a supply ship, and a drone mothership. The mothership would launch XLUUVs which would protect the underwater element, so an expensive astute was freed up for other duties.
This sort of set up only requires 3 manned ships rather than the current 7. Each drone ship could cost as little as £50-100 million as it would just be a basic small hull with moderate quietening. The cost would be in the modules, with only the ones with larger vls and radar raising costs significantly.
Autonomy for surface ships is certainly being considered by the USN as part of their 500 ship idea. IIRC ~150-200 might be autonomous with some unmanned ships being surveillance and others armed. Routine running maintenance and checks might be an issue with totally unmanned craft, particularly if on singleton patrols, but in a CSG or amphibious group where maintenance support could be heli’d over from a manned ship they might be more practical. However, a light-manned or optionally manned ship may be a half way house before full unmanned operation, a Type 31 for example can operate with only ~20 personnel if transiting non-operationally and commercial freight ships usually have low manning.
What ships operate like this may be more debatable. Would they be AAW, ASW, ASuW or land attack task specific as you outline, or a mix of armaments? Would the ships require naval build or might as you suggest be commercial build? Do they need to be built specifically for the combat role or a more general purpose platform designed to support a number of roles? Do the weapons need to be conventional naval weapon systems or might certain tasks be supported by a third party weapon system, for example land attack might use MLRS/HIMARS off a transport platform with new long range fires solutions. The ships would need to be capable of 25kn to avoid slowing a CSG but that is still practical.
Then there is the practicality of missile cost and its impact on overall numbers. As missiles get larger, faster, smarter, cover greater distances and become more capable they get more expensive. To give some US examples from the DOD FY 2021 budget request (excl RDT&E), SM-6 is ~$4m, LRASM is ~$3.6m. At these price points, which are probably low balls given they exclude RDT&E, how many ships could we realistically equip unless missile load out is populated by lower cost less capable solutions.
I don’t have a firm opinion on unmanned ships or arsenal ships for the RN currently but both bear consideration. I have already advocated for a commercial build, 25kn capable, stern landing ship in the 4k-8k tonnes displacement, as a low cost, more practical, flexible and safer alternative in larger numbers for amphibious ops in a hot war, versus using Albions, Bays or Points. All three current classes are increasing vulnerable and concentrate the risk of loss for men and equipment. Such a platform might also work for an optionally manned arsenal ship, and would mesh well IMO with the UK shipbuilding strategy.
Here’s a discussion on what the US is considering for the Light Amphibious Warship platform that might also serve as a weapons platform.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33299/navy-wants-to-buy-30-new-light-amphibious-warships-to-support-radical-shift-in-marine-ops
Even just swapping the standalone CAMM launchers for quad packable ExLS would let you increase load out density considerably.
I agree. I was focusing on the MK41 strike length just to make the point of how capable a T26 based T4X might be.
Strange but many people writing commets on this site have said the same, use the hull of the T26 as the base design of the new T4X class, possibly extended by 10m midships. Remove the midship boat bay and Sea Ceptor and replace with 48 Mk41VLS that gives 72 Mk41 plus 24 Sea Ceptors. If the T4X would have the same ASW capability then we would have a general purpose DDG then place the 57mm gun of the T31 on board and rearm the T31 with a 5inch then you are starting to get somewhere. It could and would give maximum flexibility in weapons fit with VL-ASROC, Perseus, cruise missiles, ABM missiles and long range Anti Air missiles all being able to be fitted.With a updated T45 radar suite for example four faces to the rotating SAMSON then you keep the advantagies of SAMSON whilst incoparating the advantagies of the fixed array. As the design is almost complete as well as the tooling that would save money that could be spent on weapons fit.
Extend the Type 26 hull enough to give it more than 100+ VLS (against swarms and saturation attacks) and keep the mission bays. There will also need to be space for batteries, solid state weapons and for possible new propulsion systems (electric / hydrogen).
I believe both T26 and T31 are capable of conducting a future AAW role
Both are capable of delivering far more VLS than we are currently planning if we replace the seaceptor VLS tubes with something we can quad pack (like the current silos on T23 – where we choose not to quad pack)
I would also like to see us move to a tethered radar in future but perhaps this is fantasy, but we could have a T31 with 2 radars as per IH.
Ultimately both platforms can be fully loaded with 120+ missiles if we choose to – unfortunately we choose not to.
I believe these are the right platforms for the RN, with a bit of innovation which the RN are good at both can be exceptional.
I agree that the Type 31 could be used for possible future AAW role and I’d rather see 32 × Mk41 VLS on the Type 31s than putting more money into the Type 45s after the engine upgrades.
Isn’t the Hunter class pretty much a destroyer? I don’t know the capabilities of its CEFAR arrangement, but it doesn’t look far off being a lighter version of an Arleigh Burke class in capabilities
Oh here we go with the “What is a Destroyer” conversation again.
In before someone says “Well if it was WW2 they’d be classed as Cruisers.”
…I should retype my summary of the history of Destroyers and Frigates at some point.
That would be interesting Dern. Have you posted it here before?
Was that the piece of a few months back on comparative displacements I recall?
Yes, but someone in the conversation further up was mouthing off so the entire thread got deleted (sadly when a comment is deleted all replies get deleted too) so you won’t find it. But if you give me a bit I’ll try to type it up again and post it here.
History of the Destroyer.
It all really begins with the introduction of the self propelled torpedo in the 1860’s. Before this, with some minor exceptions like fire ships, if you wanted to take on a big fleet of Ships of the Line/Ironclad Battle ships you needed a big fleet of equally powerful Ships of the Line/Ironclad Battleships. By the 1860’s ships displacements where increasing and the technology going into them was becoming increasingly complicated and expensive, and really, with the industrial revolution kicking off, there was one country that was pulling ahead of all the others in building large, armoured, steam driven Battleships.
In this environment someone at some point realised that a single torpedo might cripple or sink a Battleship, and then someone (ironically initially the Royal Navy in 1873) designed a small, fast, by the standards of the day, boat that could dodge it’s way into a fleet of battleships, launch a torpedo, and then run away to reload and try again. As soon as the world realised what the Torpedo Boat (as it was called) was there was a panic to try to develop counter measures, including things like quick firing guns, and short range “Torpedo Gunboats,” but what really took off was the “Torpedo Boat Destroyer.”
Torpedo Boat Destroyers where much larger than the Torpedo Boats (by comparison HMS Lightning, the first Torpedo Boat was displaced about 30t, while HMS Daring displaced about 200t), because unlike Torpedo Boats, who could wait for a fleet to show up in a choke point and then pounce, the TBD had to stay with an ocean going fleet, and be armed heavily enough to take down a number of Torpedo Boats. Even the first desings like HMS Daring however where equipped with Torpedoes so that they could at least menace and enemy battle line if needed.
So the original “Destroyers” where fleet escorts designed to take down small surface targets threatening the fleet, and possibly launch attacks of opportunity against hostile fleets.
By WW1 the Torpedo Boat was effectively obsolete, however the Destroyer, in it’s role as surface escort had now taken up the role of both protector, and attacker. A new wrinkle was added in with the introduction of submarines. Lots of things where attempted to try to defend against subs (HMS Dreadnought’s only kill in fact is ramming a submarine), but with Destroyers role being fast, small (1,000t by the end of the war) patrol craft designed to protect larger ships, the role of Anti-Submarine duty fell kind of naturally to them. (Destroyer, he protec, he attac, but most importantly he keep the submarine bac). Installing Depth Charges, when they became available in 1916, meant that some of the heavier equipment of destroyers (aka guns and torpedoes) had to often be removed, which in turn made Destroyers with large numbers of depth charges less adept at the protecting surface fleets and attacking battleships role.
This was exacerbated in the inter war years and in WW2. A ship designed to escort a fleet, destroy enemy destroyers, PT boats, and fire it’s own torpedoes at a hostile fleet needed to be fast, which meant a long narrow boat. It also needed a lot of guns, and torpedoes. And on top of that it needed space inside it for the crew to spend long months at sea.
Good examples of these ships include:
RN Tribal Class (entering service in 1938)
2,500t displacement, 36knot top speed. Armed with 8×4.7inch guns, 4 torpedo tubes and 20 depth charges
USN Fletcher Class (entering service 1942)
2,500t displacement, 36.5knot top speed, armed with 5x5inch guns, 10 torpedo tubes, and a small number of depth charges.
These ships, although they could attack submarines, where not suited for it. Fleets of warships anyway where at minimal risk from submarines, a submarine, travelling at 17knots on the surface, and 7knots submerged would probably only get one shot at a fleet before it was left in the dust. So a destroyer needed only to scare the submarine into diving while the Fleet moved on.
Ships designed to attack and destroy Submarines, especially when escorting merchant convoys however needed a very different design layout. They didn’t need to be fast, convoys where often limited to around 15knots by merchantmen designed for fuel efficiency rather than speed, and a mentioned, submarines where not exactly gazelles either. They didn’t need a lot of guns or torpedoes, because they where not going to be launching attacks on capital ships, and it didn’t take a lot for a small ship to overpower a submarine in a gun fight.
Because these designs had become so different from the “Destroyers” that where fighting it out in Fleet engagements, they really needed different names. The USN simply went with “Destroyer Escort,” while the RN played around with several historic ship classes (Flower Class Corvette, Black Swan Sloop) before settling on the term “Frigate.”
Examples
RN River Class Frigate:
1,800t, Speed 20 knots, 2x 4inch guns, 150 depth charges.
USN Evarts Class Destroyer Escort
1,300t, Speed 19 knots, 3x3inch guns, 160 depth charges
In the USN the term Destroyer Escort stuck around for a few years, before being called Ocean Escorts, and then finally followed suit with the RN by naming them “Frigates (The term Frigate had been used for a Destroyer Leader type ship). Destroyers continued to be a general purpose surface escort ship (both growing dramatically in size though). Within the RN Frigates have remained ASW specialised ships (though the design parameters have changed considerably for what that means since the 1940’s) while the Destroyers remained generalists, before specialising in on AAW. That’s where we where in the 1990’s really.
So what are destroyers? Type 45’s in some ways fit in more with the idea of AA cruisers from WW2 (destroyers where never big on AA platforms) but the larger Alreigh Burkes are more like general purpose Fleet Destroyers from WW2, a Destroyer larger than a cruiser? Ticonderogas seem more like Heavy Cruisers or Capital ships from back when, while Type 26’s are technically ASW specialists, making them descendants of Frigates and Destroyer Escorts. Type 31’s and LCS’s, are meant to go in against asymmetric threats, like Iranian gunboats or RPG/AT armed pirates, so are they technically Destroyers because they’re filling the role of the Torpedo Boat Destroyer? Or because, like the Type 26 originally, they’re pictured as operating alone rather than as an escort are they more akin to light cruisers? Modern Naval Class naming is a mess, because the roles of modern ships don’t really fit into the 1860-1960 classification scheme anymore.
Just found this. Thank you. Will have a good read.
Hope its informative!
the terminology is about capability, not displacement
Sorry to upset you Dern, the comment was about capability not displacement.
Go back and read my rather in depth guide to what destroyers are and where, capability is no more of a reliable indicator of what a destroyer is anymore these days than displacement. The terminiology is all over the place, and the terms don’t fit roles anymore.
I do find it interesting that you replied to my inital comment saying you’re talking about capability not displacement though, especially since I wasn’t disagreeing with you, nor did I mention displacement in that comment except to say that someone was bound to make the rather inane comment about cruisers.
Me thinks someone is looking to stir up a hornets nest perhaps?
One of the many questions that needs answering is will the Type 45 replacement be BMD capable?
Things to note:
Last week it was reported that a US Navy Admiral mentioned they are looking to replace the Arleigh Burke (155m) with a larger ship but smaller than the Zumwalt (190m).
The Chinese Type 055 destroyer is 180m with 112 VLS.
The Russian Marshal Shaposhnikov destroyer (163m) received a weapons upgrade this year.
The Type 26 (150m) could be stretched allowing for more VLS and systems (as well as keeping the mission bays) and also be a candidate for a future Arleigh Burke replacement.
in parallel, a new class of two 200m ships could be created accommodating a very large quantity of VLS (200+), long range radars and able to launch and recover unmanned ships, submersibles and STOVL aircraft. The class of these two large vessels would utilise high degrees of automation and would be leanly manned.
“The Type 26 (150m) could be stretched …”
No it can not be stretched. It is at its L/D limit.
What could, and will be done, is to design a new ship for the T45 replacement. Missiles might be the primary AA weapon or something else like DE.
Not sure what impact it’s present L/D limit would have in regards to adding a further section of hull ? You Increase its L/D limit by doing this. Sure you would change the Length to beam ratio and probably mess with primary and secondary stability as well as sea keeping ect, but L/D would not be the first reason for not stretching a hull ? Although my knowledge is more around small boat hulls so I may be all wrong.
The idea of having a constant drumbeat of type 26 hulls for the RN is a brilliant one, that many commentators have suggested over the years.
As we know the US will be building the Burke’s over Something like 50 years. So we could have a build plan for 26s running into the early 2070s. With if we need to operate a total of 14 hulls ( ASW, AAW) having three-four generations of type 26 ships serving for a total of 75-80 years ( with something like 50 built).
if you look at the need it fits, sadly it would fit better with the original plan of 8+5 hulls Then added to 6 AAW hulls, we would be able to cycle through 19 hulls with a drumbeat of around 1 a year would mean the RN would be selling (or donating to friends) hulls at 20 years old, which would seem to be a sweet spot for a hull designed for around 25-30 years of operational life.
The only question for me would be is this optimised ASW hull form still a good hull for AAW work, As we know a lot of AAW ship hulls would not make good ASW platforms being fast and manoeuvrable but without the being very quite hulls needed in ASW. I’m assuming the 26 hull would be good for AAW work as BAE did always say it would make a good type45 replacement.
Would you buy a car that was a 50 year old design?
You can’t really compare, as an example I will quote:
the flat cap: first invented and designed around six centuries ago, you can buy a new flat cap made this year….just like your great grandad would have had.
The first 747 was ordered in 1966 around half are still flying and production stops this year 54 years after the first were ordered and 51 years after the first production model came off the production lines.
How long you can keep using a design very much depends on how mature the product/industry is and how quickly changes in design occur. Some design changes are commercial drive such as women’s fashion, some due to increased knowledge base or technology such as computers others a mixture of the two cars and mobile phones.
There needs to be both the ability and scope to increase the knowledge base ( the more mature the knowledge base the more costly and marginal the benefits) and a competitive reason to drive change.
Ship Hull design is very mature indeed with expense and effort in redesign giving reducing returns ( we have been doing it for very long time). What’s in it changes and I don’t think anyone would suggest the equipment fit etc Would be the same, so there would be a continues design and modification process, a flight 1 Burke was a different ship to a future flight 3.
Thats not saying that material science or wider increase in knowledge base may throw a spanner requiring a complete change ( examples include the Brayton cycle and it’s impact on propulsion as we used it to go from sail to reciprocating steam engines to gas turbines.
Worth noting that there is a significant school of thought that puts the US’s inability to introduce a succesful surface combatant in recent years (Zumwalt and LCS for example) is down to it deciding to re-use the AB design instead of making new designs.
The skill set is lost and now the US is trying to regrow it’s ship design skills from scratch.
Now that is a very good point Dern and it flows back to how much are we willing to pay to keep skill sets running and are we happy to have a less efficient building programme with a constant turn around of new ship designs so we are able to keep ship design skills in place.
That is we’re you need clever thinking around the planning for the type of ships you need, developing a healthy export market and sharing design tasks and skills with allies.
if you think of the different types of ship the RN needs designing and add the export market and sharing design teams across allies there should be work to keep design skills up and running.
At the end of the day it will be up to the government on how many are built and seeing as we have a defence review i see more cuts backs happening , its a shame we have more pen pushers in our ministry of defence than we have servicing men and we are putting all our eggs in one basket hoping that the US will fill the gap for us because of the tory government cuts ,
They will end up ordering 8 but cut that to 6, while fitting lots of for but not with stuff.
Those missing two will be fitted for but not equipped with a hull and superstructure.
What the Type 4X means is ……. no new destroyers, only smaller and less capable frigates. The cheap option.
I have spent some time thinking about the future T45 replacement now known as the T83. No matter which way I look at it the T26 hull just does not do it, so I went back to the T45 hull which will work without to much reworking.
So here goes, first the hull need to be lengthened by about 9ft aft of the main funnel, there after straightend out a bit so that the hanger and flight deck is a bit wider. The boat bays are removed giving space for a helicopter hanger with two Merlins or two Wildcats + three rotary UAVs. under the flight deck is space for a VDS towed array. As for the main radar package, the SAMPSON/S1850M works well so why change it? Upgrade the SAMPSON to a 3 or 5 array and the 1850 to the SMART L EWC and that should do the trick. We all agree that the T45 needs more punch so lets give her more punch. So the first question is SYLVER or Mk41s seeing that the T26s are getting Mk41 and the T45s were designed for the combination I think the T83 should keep the combination of SYLVER and Mk41s except I would use the SYLVER A70. So forward I would have 48 A-70s + 16 MK41s Tactical launchers midships where the T45 has been stretched a further 24 Mk41s Strike launchers. That gives a total of 88 launchers it is still not as many as most destroyers but it is enough. Gunnery and point defence would be completly diffrent. There would be no 4.5 inch or 5 inch gun but the 57 mm gun forward, also forward would be two wing 40 mm guns and a central CIWS, midships would be 2 further 40mm where the current CIWS is located and on the hanger roof a Sea Ram. That gives a point defence of 1x 57mm, 4x40mm 1xCIWS and 1xSeaRam, possibly keep the 2x30mm with LMM for those pesky swarming boats. The forward CIWS and Sea Ram is to be replaced with Dragonfire when it becomes available to the fleet. All missiles including anti ship to be launched from vls systems. Depending on the condition of the SYLVER A-50s when the T45s are decommissioned and for that matter the T45s SAMPSON they could be reused in a new destroyer escort type T46. Would the new T83 need RM Commando’s no they are carrier escorts or surface action group flag ships. A minimum of 6 is needed, two for each carrier, one for Amphib group and one undergoing refit/ repair work up etc.
As for the powerplant enough for 30 knots on both props but 20 knots on a single prop, with two independent engine rooms cross linked.
The new T46s would work with the T31 and T32 they could be built cost effectivly if and only if the radar and A-50s are useable by the end of the 2030s and can give a further 15 years of useable life. Otherwise its a no go.
Thinking about the future of RN air defence and carrier escort I keep wondering about the idea of steel being cheap. If that is really the case then maybe we should do something completly diffrent. Two types of ship. The first would be a T46 based on the T26 design, replace the forward an midship Sea Ceptor Cells with two possibly five Mk41 Tactical VLS tubes. That could give up to five Tactical and three Strike Mk41 Blocks given 64 Tubes or 32 Sea Ceptors, 8 TLAMS and 48 Aster 30s. Remove the 5inch gun and replace it with a 57mm, remove Phalanx and replace with the 40mm and a third 40mm above the hanger. Remove the Artisan Radar and replace with a multi function radar mast with a fixed four plane S1850M type radar and a three plane SAMPSON. As there would be no real development costs in hull, machinery, weapons and sensors the cost would be a continuations of the T26 program. We could possibly get eight of these.
Now come the T83 and my question is steel really cheap, if so then I see the T83 as a guided missile helicopter cruiser of about 25-30,000 tons. Yes I know thats big but they me explain. The superstructure would be a smaller version of the QE carriers with a three plane SAMPSON replacing the Artisan radar and updrade the S1850M. The flight deck and hanger would stop level with the fore bridge. The flight deck would be five decks above sea level, the hanger would have a space for two helicopters undergoing rotar replacement meaning four decks in hight, the rest of the hanger space would be three decks high.Overall hanger dimenstions would be 460ft x 70ft and 20 ft in hight, workshop area would be 30 ft in hight. It would mean a ship of about 770-800ft long, 110 ft in the beam, 125ft over flight deck and a draught of 28 ft. She would be in the fore section four decks above sea level and the flight deck five decks. I use an over the thumb of 10ft per deck level. It would mean that an upgraded SAMPSON would be about 150ft-170ft above sea level 60 ft more than a T45. This would give an extra few seconds for sea skimmers at the horizon. In modern combat every second counts. Using the automated systems of the QE carriers her crew would be about 300 persons plus aircrew RMs etc so a total of 750-800.
On the four corners of the flight deck would be sponsons for 40mm, 25mm, Sea Ceptor and at the stern a SeaRAM. This would mean four 40mm, 4 25mm and 4 blocks of 6 Sea Ceptors. The hanger would be for 12 Merlin size helicopters and five landing spots. One of which should be F35B capable in an emergancy landing situation. Two lifts would be available one open lift aft of the flight control structure and one abreast the forward structure for a folded Merlin. As said the flight deck should be five decks, forward of the ship control structure the hull would drop by one deck level and be fitted with 9 blocks of Mk41s, three off which should be Strike length and a 57mm. If four-six boat bays could be built in for say the CB-90s that would be useful.
Before people say dreaming fleet fantisy etc, I am not using any superdooper radar, no super dooper missiles and no 200 hypersonic kill everything. What I have done is freed up the Carriers to carry F35Bs, extra support to the ASW capabilities of the T46s which would carry towed array as their T26 frigate half sister does. The T46 of my thinking will still have a smaller missile capacity of an AB from the USN. Giving an emergency landing spot for F35Bs if the carrier is having an issue and increased exsisting missile capacity from 48 Asters and 24 Sea Ceptors of the rebuilt T45 to 81 Asters and 24 Sea Ceptors. I have used space (hanger and flight deck), steel and exsisting tech. I recommend four of these ships. Two of these T83s with four T46s per carrier would mean the carrier would have for point defence 6 x 57mm, 16 x 40mm, 8 x 25mm, 8 x 30mm, 2 x Sea Ram. For long range defence up to 176 Sea Ceptors, and 354 Aster 30s/NT1/BMD etc. That would give and nation including China/Russia and the US air strike capability a very bad hair day. I do think we could build these for about £1.5 billion each. Whilst the T46 to my thinking would cost about £800 million each if built today.
Power plant could be as simple as a copy of the QE carriers, two MT30s and four MTUs on twin shafts.
I would use these ships as surface/ anti submarine command flagships.
Not only that but I have used existing designs, for example we could use a variant of the QE design or the Italian Trieste design, existing equipment, future build concepts such as the T26 variants from Aus and Canada and freed up the T26s to do their jod of sub hunting. By the way we do have experiance with such a T83 they were called the Invincible class and the scissor lifts for the forward lift.
Again I know such a build program would be a huge increase in warship numbers for the RN as it would mean a future fleet of 8 T26s, 5 T31s, 5 T32s, 8 T46s and 4 T83s, 30 combat ships in total. However is a 30 surface combat fleet Royal Navy to big for an Island nation. I also know about manpower, however with the T46s and T83s in the way I see how they would operate if a carrier goes to sea, the escorts go to sea. So in times of peace it would be expected that only one carrier is on operations which would mean one escort group. We could then decide if we wish to spend more for manpower meaning the T83s or T46s could operate as T26 group flagships etc. or we could save money have have the ships undergoing refit/repair/home birth/dry dock birth to save on manpower. It would mean an increase over current levels of about 10,000 sailors.