Australian Type 26 Frigate variant contract awarded

Obsession? we will be lucky if surface ships survive in next 30 years.

It is an obsession, constant discussion around adding more vls to the design that would require even more modification, add more top weight and one proposal would even have removed the towed array and other sonar equipment, they need the ships built, hopefully they just get on with it

I think the Australian Navy’s does its battle sims on DCS. More missiles equals victory 😀

Of course DCS does not do submarines or mines

Are you a Grim Reapers watcher too?
It’s been interesting with some DCS simulations how effective Spear has been as a lightweight AShM as a means of attriting opponents’ missile supplies by threatening a mission kill.
UK does get significantly nerfed with the lack of SSNs, one of the things we are really good at.

If the threat was the submarine then to make sense Type 26 would have a 2 helicopters(be it drone or manned) hangar,

Not the absurd hangar they have.
But it is irrelevant, you can make in a 8000t ship a multipurpose one.

Now thats just ridiculous, the British T26 is clearly a heavily ASW orientated vessel, but there are reasons for having 1 hangar.
The mission bay takes up a large portion of the ship so unless the ship was made even longer the hangar is currently next to an exhaust and boat bay, and the mission bay was clearly a key requirement, not just empty space. Plus the UK and other navies have operated with a single helo for long periods of time now, theyve clearly been able to manage and not have a double hangar as an essential. Would also point out with only 25 active merlins we cant be deploying them in pairs regularly.

The RAN currently has 23 Seahawk Romeos with a further 12 on order – all with dipping sonars.

A double hangar would have allowed a single helo operating more continuously/frequently for a more effective ASW screen or both simultaneously to triangulate or prosecute and active track.

Well if they’d really wanted it they either should’ve ordered a longer and modified design or again, gone for a different ship.
The T26 has been exported but it was designed for thr Royal Navys requirements, hence all the extensive modifications both the exports have had.

FYI The T26 was designed as a dedicated ASW frigate but with a significant margin for growth in terms of space, power and flexibility. Back in the days of RCNC it was called an Admiralty Board Margin, unfortunately that simple lesson based on hundreds of years of RN experience died in the 1950’s. It was all about the here and now so the idea to allow for growth over the lifetime of a ship went out the door and the Bean counters came in.
The consequences of that were the T12, T21, T42, T22 ships which had very little margin.
Hence from the T45 onwards a margin was specified into the KUR.
FYI Hunter has used a lot of the margin as has Canada but due to the Australian radar the hull will be slightly wider than ours. Also just remember BAe designed this with one eye on exports and another for T83. So T26 was a way better start point for a GP Frigate than trying to adapt an AAW design for ASW.

At this point can only hope all the delays to construction have given them the time to work out the kinks so the ship is at least functional when it eventually arrives.
I’m not dissing the idea of the Hunter, just the way they went about it.

They are also looking at 11 ASW capable GP frigates. Need to double the order.

“heavily ASW orientated vessel”

1 merlin
No torpedoes

Are you actually listening, I’ve already explained why there’s only one Helo, and as we’ve seen with the recent RFI for an Asroc type weapon, they lookijg to replace ship born short ranged torps with that.
Would also point out that a T23 only has 1 Helo and so has every other UK sub hunter.

Plus as part of a CSG they are supported by alot more carrier Helos, their main goal is to just find the sub in the first place.

There are far more air threats in the world than there are sub surface…and very high dash speed is not something essential for ASW work.

Yes there are. But that doesn’t mean all ships require fill spectrum AAW ability, especially not when it compromises the original purpose of the design.
And speed isn’t essential, but it’s certainly more useful

It’s actually far more of a technical challenge and expensive to design an effective ASW ship than a AAW one.
The main requirements are dash speed, range, seakeeping, power supply, space low down for sonar and the ability to become very quiet. So if you are building such a vessel for deep oceanic warfare you by default you end up with a large, spacious hull with reserves of power, excellent buoyancy and
lots of space to add extras.
I’m no expert in surface warships but from what I have seen of the T26 she is probably the nearest surface equivalent to a Hunter Killer Sub ever built.
And she is big and flexible enough to grow a bit further and accept additional functions / weapons without compromising her ASW abilities.
I have a sneaking suspicion that when Glasgow enters service and interacts with the USN they may just regret not joining in 🤔
If you look at the spec of the CCS version it’s pretty well a T26 full of US kit and weaponry.

Arguably they’re stil justified in choosing a proven design, we don’t know how glasgow is going to perform yet, let alone the Candian version which probably won’t be finished till the mid to late 2030s.

Also yes there is lots of room to expand but sea far is on a ridiculous scale, the cut in Hunter numbers isn’t a good indication for the cost overruns and issues with the sub class.

“Choosing a proven design” that the USN has modified so extensively it doesn’t even look like a FREMM anymore? Beyond the gas turbine, every major system and even the hull has changed.

Rodney is right, the Canadian version is an almost perfect fit for the USN’s requirements, with the most notable differences being the gun armament and radar (the Constellations use the same radar as the new Burkes, while the CSC has naval version of the Aegis Ashore system).

Instead of going for an older design and bodging it to fit, choosing a finished design currently in-build that needed no modification would’ve been the cheaper choice.

Canadian ships still aren’t in build at this point. And if were being honest there still would’ve been extensive modification to the T26 design, its less a problem with any of the designs specifically and more to do with issues with US procurement like endless modifications to the design during initial construction. Either way, there was no situation where the T26 gets picked as there’s just no way to be certain whether it works yet.

Plus don’t forget these delays are also in large part due to a shortage of workers at US yards.

I don’t like the fact they cut the numbers from 9 to 6 but they did it for very good reasons and it’s not anything to do with cost over runs or other issues. It’s simply that the RAN reassessed their needs against timescales and budgets.
They cut 3 high end ASW ships which with the 3 Hobart AAW ships gives them a pretty well balanced high end force. What that enables them to do is buy increased mass with 11 tier 2 smaller, cheaper GP Frigates.
They want an off the shelf design with maximum interoperability but rapid delivery, to do that they accept the 1st 3 will be built abroad bur remainder in Australia.

My bet would actually be on an iteration of the Japanese Mogami Frigate as they have a very good relationship, work closely together and Japan delivers on time and on budget.
And it just happens to use the same RR MT30 GT set as the Hunters.

I mean the timescale wasn’t helped by the design issues, anyway.
Will have to see about the Mogami, perhaps the improved design they’re making as the current plan means the Mogami class won’t have any vls Sam’s, just VLA.
I know AAW is less of an issue with this GP class they’re planning, but they’ll certainly want at least ESSM

I’m betting on a Meko variant getting the gig, if only because it’s what the RAN already knows and loves in the ANZAC

That of course depends on whether they can be built fast enough

The difference is that the current 6 large SSK are to be replaced by 8 US/UK SSN’s. One of the references of the latest Naval review was what, if any, changes should be made (note: the Hunter class was pre AUKUS), with the introduction of this many SSN’s to the RAN. If you have 8 modern SSN, do you need 9 heavy ASW or are you better off dropping to 6 ASW & adding the extra 3 to the AAW side (with secondary ASW). Current Hobart class can actually do ASW (unlike T45).

BAE are already promoting 64 & 96 mk41 VLS versions of the Hunter class. With the Hunter class being longer & wider than T26, is it already a prototype T83? A 96 VLS Hunter with Sampson etc would make T45 look decidedly anaemic.

. The main requirements are dash speed

Nonsense.
Maybe you can explain what Type 26 RN fights with if do not even have a torpedo launcher.

Does it drop anchor in top of submarine?

It is telling that you did not listed helicopters as an essential one. Basically some are justifying the Type 26 project mistakes.

I assume that’s the reason the UK has asked industry for proposals for updated ‘ikara’ like systems. Drones is another option.

Possibly regarding the missile, they realised that they have only the Merlin to fight submarines and it takes all hangar. Still i doubt it will be successful endeavour due to cost.

Concerning drones it is still years in the future for real capable ASW drones- with detection and combat capability – but no drone even those small fits in the hangar with a Merlin. That is even a bigger issue than just not having space for 2 Merlin.

Edit : one option is to return the Wildcat to have ASW capability.

I’m not qualified to comment on the technology options. I did read that the Japanese have an ‘ikara’ that outranges sub launched wire guided torpedos.

It’s a way more modern and improved ASROC type.

I would like to think that T26 will be given what it needs to be the apex predator in the sub hunter-killer world.

The Italians also have a longer ranged ‘improved’ ASROC type system. All of which are really an improved ‘Ikara’ type system. You would have thought they would have come up with something better by now. I suppose, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

A better one would be to tell MOD to actually buy enough Merlin’s and Wildcats 😡

Wiki says 30 operation Merlin ASW out of 44.

The 8 Type 26 lets say 6 operational would mean 12 Merlin.*
Instead of wasting F-35 space in carriers, the Merlin could be in Type 26.

So i don’t think lack of Merlin is an issue if the numbers are correct.
*edit, if it had the correct hangar size.

The actual answer is Merlin with Stingray lightweight torpedo. The same system that T-26 would launch from it’s magazines if it was fitted, except thanks to it being launched from a Helicopter it doens’t have to get into Knife fighting range of a hostile submarine to launch them.

So why the interest in this ASROC thing; for T31?

I don’t think they’re buying it for T31. They’re buying it for the Mk41 launcher which both T26 and 31 will carry, so it’ll probably be intigrated onto T31 just by default if that makes sense?

Anyway a Stingray LWT has a range of about 8-11km (which is why the RN didn’t bother fitting them to T-26 in a magazine, it’s a really short range weapon, but if you can fly them out in a helicopter and drop them on someone… works better). Most VLA’s have a range of about 20ish km, so with a Stingray it’ll probably reach out and touch someone 35km away on a good day? Way better than the magazine launched option of course.

The thing is how is a Inspiration Class going to detect as Submarine 30km out? (Unless it has a helicopter up with a dipping sonar, in which case: you’re already flying helicopters, and probably further away than 30km).

So I suspect they’ll go onto the City’s and leave the Inspirations with NSM/Sea Ceptor fits.

I focussed on the hull type and propulsion for a reason, it’s the big difference between AAW and ASW. Oh and I am in a minority who agree with you about needing an onboard ASW weapon. Torpedo, ASROC or Japanese I really don’t care but the RN is unique in not seeing the need.
And yes Dash speed is a KUR, as you need to get from A to B, but slow and silent is the hard bit (and bloody expensive).

I think there is a balance to be had if you look at the two French Freda frigates..France did an upgrade for some later models of the FREMM ASW frigate, providing an upgraded AAW suite..including a good sensor fit as well as 32 silos, without making any concession to the original FREMM ASW capabilities…to be honest it may be that Australia has gone a little to far and put to much weight on as its ceafar radar is a profoundly heavy option and they could have got a very good scanned array for a hell of a lot less weight….you could give the type 26 a pretty good AAW capability ( a bit below a T45) without the weight issues that aus has come across.

I think the Canadian example, when it eventually reaches service is a better example of a General purpose version of it, I believe they’ll have SM2 iirc.

I totally get why Austrlia needs more air defence out of it with only 3 destroyers and the anzacs very limited defenses, but they’re really pushing their home grown tech, even if it’s not nessecarily a benefit

Yes, agree the Canadian version looks capable and more balanced. They have managed to retain the Sea Ceptor cells. It makes sense for them to go with Aegis and Spy radar. But they too are struggling with costs. I do think both Canada and Australia made the right choice in Type 26.

Hunter also has SM2 plus quad packed ESSM same as CCS, but Canada is also adding 24 CAMM as well.
Now that’s pushing it a bit far.

No I know it will have SM2 and such, I’m just saying they’re building it like a destroyer when it wasn’t designed as one.
Don’t see how it’s pushing it a bit far, ceafar is great but it has caused unessecary issues with the design.

Hunter & CCS also capable of SM3 & SM6. Hunter could probably do with CAMM.

I think you need to understand why they adapted the FREMM for extra AAW, it’s not ideal but France has an even tighter budget than us. France only bought 2 Horizon AAW ships and have 2 older ones which are time expired.
They needed more but budget is elsewhere replacing all their SSN and then SSBN.
All they did was take the Heracles Radar and improve it slightly, it’s a fairly old design and way more limited.
If you want a laugh take a look at the Italian FREMM version, it has the same EMPAR radar as their Horizons. So bar load out it’s pretty impressive in AAW dept.

They could have put 32 Aster 30.

Italians will have 2+8+6 (Horizon, FREMM, PPA) ships with Aster 30 = 16

French 2+2+5 (Horizon, FREMM, FDI) = 9

UK= 6 Type 45.

Type 26 also needs to get rid of Phalanx and get Bofors.

I agree, however it seems the RAN want T45 type performance. If you build a 10,000t frigate, I certainly would. It’s scalable. Anzac frigate is around 3,800t & has L,S & X band. CEAFAR fits fine on T26 (or just about anything else). It’s more a case of how carried away you want to go. Just like Sampson, you want to go higher, more power, there consequences. CEAFAR is in relative terms a heavy radar. Heavy radar up high, has to be compensated for. Is it worth the cost? RAN thinks so. Are they right? The answer (right or wrong), is of course, classified.

Yes I believe they went for the heaviest possible configuration of CEAFAR as it’s a highly configurable system….they could have got an top end ASW frigate with good AAW performance..but it seems they wanted top end of both and not even the US have managed to work out that one…you can get a ship with top end in one and good in the other..but not top end in both.

Yes there are but in the far Blue waters that the vast majority of the worlds trade has to pass the biggest threat is the Submarine. And by threat I really do mean threat, because they can be just about anywhere the mere rumour of a Sub in an area can cause havoc.
Everyone tends to forget that there was another earlier threat of invading the Falklands and it was fettered. I believe it was during Callaghans tenure, they saw the sabre rattling and intelligence warned of active preparations. So a small fleet was dispatched but they also did a Graf Spee exercise in sig int and leaks to the press about an SSN being in the locality.
Operation Journeyman !
More recently in 2010 the US decided to remind China about the “Big Stick”. They just waited for Chinese spy satellites to be overhead and had 3 Ohio SSGN all surface at the same time and then vanish.

What I’m trying to say is apart from a very few exceptions or from a carrier the oceans are far away from combat aircraft and we have far fewer ASW assets than we used to.

Air threats will proliferate (most likely the dominant threat) in any SCS conflict. No allied ship operating in the SCS will be out of range of land based aircraft either from China’s artificial islands, the mainland or the PLAAN’s growing carrier fleet.

Hence the obsession by the RAN with air defence and VLS cell counts.

This is not the same naval challenge as a deep water mid Atlantic battlefield.

Who’s arguing ? I’m not 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m just explaining that the T26 was optimised for the later rather than the former but due to the latent capability of the design it’s a really good start place for a GP frigate. And a couple of years ago it was mooted that the RN may adopt CEAFAR 2 as well.

Type 26 optimized for ASW

• 2 Merlin helicopters or 1 Merlin and various helicopter ASW drones(smaller) .
• Spearfish firing at stern or long range ASW missile

.

Have to smile..why did the world go with Linux rather thsn Windows or IBM; why did VHS triumph over BetaMax? Short answer…there’s more character building and money to be made fixing something that’s not what you want. Each new generation needs its own challenges:-)

CEAFAR radars have good reputation.

Yes the radars are good, I saw a trial unit in Sydney a few years ago (which wasn’t picked up for ATC unfortunately); however one must wonder at what economies of scale they are achieving when they are purchasing AEGIS, using CEA over the LHM radars, using SAAB C2 over LHM most likely requiring a modification of the ATI used in the Hobart class, let alone the standard T26 with 997 and C2 (BAE) fit which the design utilised.

…Then they can a third of the fleet meaning all those development and (cancelled) production costs are spread over the remaining units – Which if I were to hazard a guess will result in the loss of 3 frigates for no real savings by the time production is completed.

Agreed, given the success with CEAFAR on the Anzacs (a much smaller platform), it should have been straight forward on the Hunters. So why wasn’t it for BAE?

The ABs were ruled out early on as much for crewing issues as anything else, although they had some strong advocates in navy and political circles.

Navantia offered a modified Hobart design, so there would have been a very high degree of commonality with benefits in terms of training, supply chains and maintenance, existing trained workforce and a production schedule that could have rolled on more quickly after the Hobart build. Plus a 2 spot helo hanger – 2 Romeo Seahawks with dipping sonar have clear advantages in ASW.

We know the Hobarts can handle the cooling requirements for the similar fixed plate Aegis AESA radars without any subsequent topweight issues.

I doubt the Navantia design would ever have reached the same acoustic signature as the T26 which promises to be superior in this regard, although its still an unknown until its in the water.

Despite the proposed changes to isolate machinery and propulsion plants for ASW, Navantia is clearly less experienced than UK builders in ASW.

But maybe what Australia needed all along (and what the Hunter may evolve into) is a more general purpose destroyer sized frigate with a decent (if not world beating) ASW capability.

As far as the Norway incident, the loss of the ship was largely due to human error and a crew poorly trained in navigation, OOW maneuverers and damage control.

To quote the Navy Lookout website: ‘Some hasty judgements were made by those speculating about the event… Some also assumed the subsequent sinking was because: “the ship must have been poorly constructed by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia as warships are specifically designed to survive damage and flooded compartments”. The investigation has proved neither of these assumptions to be the case.’

You can point out problems with Navantia designs (previous Canberra class azi pod seals, current Supply class propulsion issues). UK designed/built ships are not immune (QE shaft seals, replacing HMAS Choules (Bay class) transformers Daring class propulsion failures).

But here we are now. Time to get on with it.

It’s more a case of how high you want to put the radar. The higher you go, the more you can see. You can’t put a Samson at T45 height on an Anzac. Putting one on a RN T26 is also problematic. Putting one on a Hunter, less so.

Is a 96 vls Hunter a destroyer? Probably. 64 vls? Less probably, but ok, I will go with it. 32 vls? No.

The CEAFAR fit t the Anzacs is in no way the same and that didn’t stop the need to ballast down the Anzacs with concrete.

The Anzacs were based on 1980s Meko design well before maritime AESA radars were operational at sea so no surprise additional ballast and other hull changes were needed to manage topweight and displacement.

But the T26 is a 21st century design with a displacement equivalent to an Arleigh Burke touted as a ‘global’ ship able to be modified for different sensor suites and weapons.

There was a strong push by the UK (including a visit down under by Boofhead Boris) to have the T26 design included in the RAN competition.

The original RFI was scoped (potentially as a result of lobbying) fairly widely. Specifying AESA radars would have made the T26 design non compliant and fall at the first hurdle.

Procurement processes naturally become more refined at each step. That is just normal commercial practice.

Cost and capability trade offs also only become more apparent when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of negotiations and commercial-in-confidence and mil spec systems capabilities are divulged.

BAE had their big boy pants on when they advised their design could handle CEAFAR.

Everyone needs to just get on with it, sort the design and build the things.

I like that…I like that a lot.

It’s ironic that an incoming labour govt will have a political philosophy that looks more inclusive and ‘communautaire’ than the EU. While the EU heads in the direction of the far right most of the Tory ‘ European Research Group’ will be out of a job. Got to laugh really,

Just as long as you don’t spend your hard earned on your kids education.

Ditto

Any much of Europes problems were in Westminster as well 😀

Perfectly put

Spot on, we do have the capability if only we believe in ourselves and above all convince a depressingly risk averse City to back the talent we have. So many from Herman Hauser (Arm) to Mustafa Suleyman (DeepMind) have lamented how unsupportive the City and backers generally in Britain have been to innovative and technology start ups which means our loss is Californias gain.

Yes, I would agree our problem is lack of faith in ourselves; bit like England in the Euros perhaps – lots of talent but we are not clicking as a national team. To be fair I think the politicians understand the problem – hence draping yourself in the Union flag and ideas like a return to national service. This country prospered post war from 1945 through to the 70’s because we still had a strong, shared sense of national identity. Everyone accepted the principle of mutuality – rights and obligations go together if you want peace, prosperity and a sense of community – people had the memory that sometimes you must be prepared to make sacrifices. In a sense Sunak’s behaviour at the D-Day celebrations was a metaphor for our fall from grace as it were.
We need to reverse the divisive effect of the political and technology trends since the 80s and recover what we had because Putin is doing his very best to undermine us. Arson attacks on Polish supermarkets, theft of NHS patient records, Ukraine…..

well it’s close if you have a lot of kids…there was a nasty threshold I had a while back. When my salary hit a specific point and my taxable income went above £50,000 and hit around £60k after pension…I ended up paying

14.5% pension ( with the nhs pension the more you earn the higher percent of wages you pay in a pension tax as it’s not actually invested for me just spent or given to the treasury)
10% national insurance
40% tax
for essentially 60% of my wages over a specific point. Then for the ultimate “it’s not worth it” feeling, .I lost almost 3k of child benefit payments….

essentially for this extra £10,000 I payed around £6000 back to the government in stoppages …and lost 3k in child benefit…so essentially I got 10% of that pay rise. I decided that essentially 20% of my work time was paying me around 3 pounds an hour from my around £30 an hour salary..and cut my hours accordingly down so I was at least no longer paying 40% income tax and losing child benefits.

The joys of the UK tax system.
Currently I am expat’ing tax free on my wages, but my UK armed forces pension gets taxed at source at the basic rate.
When Mrs GB and I return it will be UK pension, AF pension, her pension. We won’t get above the higher thresh hold but then again, no mortgage and only Houshold bills to contend with so easily manageable.

Yes I have never quite understood why they have the cliff edges…they do tend to encourage part time working amongst those of us luckly enough to become higher rate tax payers…maybe a graduated system would be better.

Aussie is in relatively good shape though.

That’s because Australia has 25.6% of its population aged between 20 and 54…the UK has 22.1% of its population in that age group…the lower that percentage the more problems a county has.

Which is nothing compared with China. One of the predictions re Taiwan, is in 10 years time, China will be incapable of invading. The one child policy has unintended consequences. There is a self inflicted massive negative bulge in their population. This is what has thrown the major Indo-Pacific powers into over drive (at least those with money). CCP has been threatening invasion for decades. In 10 – 15 years, it will be an empty threat. The Asian idea of saving face, makes a major East Asia war between 2025-2035 highly likely.

Well I would say your right.. it’s actually more likely china will invade in the next decade because of that…china is working itself to being at the peak of its regional and world geopolitical power at around 2030 and as you say it’s situated will then worsen…but that means at present is power is growing significantly…so when china says we are ready to invade and kick of a war after 2027…we had better take them seriously.

I was about to reply to your earlier post re IMF and GDP, so it’s not all to do with use being bloody marvellous it’s more to do the rest being worse.
OK I’ll go with that a slow horse wins the National because the other horses have fatter Jockies than ours.😉

Thats why enginears developed Spelcheckers…

( Did you see what I did there? 😀)

😁

Well can someone check the 3 in Germany for worms please ?

Agree, both BAES and RR have successfully broken the code, and should be cited as case studies in UK universities offering business majors. 👍

Under the original plan, the shipyard building 9 Hunters were then to start building Hobart destroyer replacements (of which there are currently 3). The government cut Hunters to 6, but is still saying the Hobart replacements will still start straight after the Hunters. That, to me suggest’s RAN may be looking at 6 replacements. That could be something like T83 or the 64/96 vls Hunter. ie instead of 9 heavy frigates followed by 3 destroyers, it may well be 6 heavy frigates & 6 destroyers.

The 11 GP Patrol frigates are seperate to this (different shipyards).

🤔 Interesting possible alternative. Thanks. 👍

🤔 Interesting, pleased to read that there may well have been deliberate reasoning behind the decision, rather than a simple reflex reaction to spiraling costs. 👍

Thanks for the info. 😊

One minor note: 3+3+4=10, not 11. Presume second tranche may include four vessels slated to be built in OZ? 🤔

That should be 5, not 4 ships. Class of 6, followed by a class of 5 modified (batch 2) frigates. Zero design changes, makes zero sense. Minimal is more likely. Even that may be more along the lines of what the design house is familiar with. Korea has built SAAB 9LV based frigates before (Thailand), but with SAAB radars (RAN also utilises SAAB radars on some of its ships). At the minimum, everything, including CMS has to be in English. Comms systems also has to comply to standard RAN setup.

I don’t know any OPV that carries NSM, Sea Ceptor, and Mk41 VLS systems…. The “Type 31 is an overgrown OPV” was only ever silly hyperbole meant to undermine a fundamentally sound RN project, and now it has a VLS system it’s gone from “Silly hyperbole” to “outright ridiculous” as a statement.

I think there’s very much the possibility that the GP Frigate will be a pretty cheap and now heavily equipped design. Which I guess it you want to focus on number of vessels and getting more ASW sensors isn’t terrible.

I mean I’ve literally just quoted you the different displacements with their various imperial and metric equivalents and shown you how the disparity between them accounts for your conflicting displacement figures you’ve been given.

Also it’s City, Hunter and CSC. All three are T-26s.