Work has started on the first River class Destroyer, a variant of the British Type 26 Frigate.

The Canadian Government said:

Today has us celebrating, as the start of construction activities for Canada’s new fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) begins! This will equip our fleet with 15 new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster our capabilities for decades.”

According to the news release:

“Ship names are chosen carefully, and they tell the story of the RCN. Not only are these three ships named after Canada’s most important waterways that reach the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans, they are also a tribute to previous Canadian warships with the same names – ships that made heroic wartime contributions and represented cutting-edge technological innovation. The RCN intends to foster a sense of pride in our sailors by connecting these ships to Canada’s maritime heritage.

The CSC project is the largest and most complex shipbuilding initiative in Canada since the Second World War and represents a historic investment into the recapitalization of the RCN’s surface fleet. This project will equip the RCN with new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster Canada’s naval capabilities at home, and abroad, for decades to come. The River-class will be Canada’s major component of maritime combat power, enabling us to continue to monitor and defend our own coastal waters, and contribute significantly to international naval operations alongside our Allies.

Today marked the start of construction on the production test module (PTM), through which the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will be able to test and streamline processes, and implement lessons learned into the build process, to enable the start of full rate production in 2025. Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected in the early 2030s, with the final ship expected by 2050.

The CSC project will support sustainable growth in Canada’s marine supply chain. The build phase of CSC will create and/or maintain approximately 10,800 jobs annually throughout the 25-year construction period across the country. The design phase of the project will create and/or maintain approximately 5,000 Canadian jobs annually across the economy. In total, this project will generate at least $40 billion in cumulative Gross Domestic Product.

As indicated in our renewed vision for defence, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Canada’s defence industry, based on clarity, certainty, and long-term partnership. The CSC project is an excellent example of how the Government of Canada is investing in Canada’s domestic shipbuilding industry, while also equipping the RCN with a fleet of modern and effective ships to support operations well into the future.

The CSC is based on BAE Systems’ Type 26 warship design being built by the United Kingdom and Australia. The ships will have enhanced underwater sensors, state-of-the-art radar, and modern weapons.

The official NATO Ship Designator for the River-class warship will be DDGH – a destroyer (DD)guided (G) missile, helicopter (H) capable. As the RCN’s next generation combat ship, it replaces both the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates. As a powerful and multi-functional ship, the River-class warship is by definition a destroyer: a fast, manoeuvrable, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine long-endurance warship, which can escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

112 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch (@guest_830768)
2 days ago

It will be very interesting to see if they get all 15 ships of the class. it is a tad embarrassing we are only getting 8 hulls when Canada, on paper is committing to 15. I know we are getting T31s and have T45s as well but considering we have a population of 67 million and a $3 trillion economy we should have an escort fleet larger than 20 hulls.

Markam
Markam (@guest_830770)
2 days ago

I think the whole concept with Canada is that these ships will make up the entirety of their frigate/destroyers, and they will not build others. Probably why they are calling them Destroyers and are fitting them with top of the line radars. The UK will have the Type 31, but also the 45 til it retires and is replaced by the 83 and potentially the Type 32 to make up our escorts. We still need more though, to be sure. I would like it if our Rivers are replaced by a 3-4k tonne frigate co-developed with Sweden that can add… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_830779)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

The way to get upto 32 hulls isn’t just fantasy fleet time.
Add 2-4 more type 26s to the programme, a second batch of type 31s, 5-10 type 32s and plan for 8-10 minimum type 83s. That will give us a fleet of between 34 and 40 escort warships.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830789)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I mean before any of this we need enough staff for that ships we have. The Royal Navy has a personnel cap which means they can actually only staff maybe 4 destroyers and 7-9 frigates iirc. So adding more ships won’t do any good if they’re just alongside.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830821)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

I’d be interested to see a manpower exercise that would identify the minimum crew size our existing ships really do need. I think the crew sizes could be reduced without affecting performance.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830846)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

We’re already slashing crew sizes with the new ships being built. Many argue the T31 and beyond will have far too few

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830970)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

But you need damage control…to reduce the crew via automation your automating it ..you have to build the ship very specifically to manage damage control with a lesser crew..that means huge levels of compartmentalisation beyond a normal warship all of which are sealed and filled with inert gas…even then your at greater risk of losing the ship…a number of US ships have been saved from foundering because of their larger crews.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831001)
2 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

So have RN ones…
Nottingham, Southampton, Brazen…

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831035)
2 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Very true although these were collisions and groundings…but the USN have some extreme examples of ships floating and moving after extremely significant battle damage form heavyweight anti ship missile.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831000)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

USN did it on LCS. Crew fatigue and performance issues where the result.
A contributing factor to the AB collisions of recent years was crew fatigue.

Watch On, Stop On is not sustainable over a few weeks.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830831)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

some of the shops are overmanned. a study which can identify the minimum crews our fleet needs perr ship.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830844)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Overmanned is far better than overworked crews who resign after a strenuous deployment.

tomuk
tomuk (@guest_830911)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

But if more vessels are are amiable due to smaller crews the deployment lengths would be shorter and more attractive.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830943)
2 days ago
Reply to  tomuk

Perhaps but if you include the amount that have to go through refit or training you don’t get many more available for deployment. Without fixing our crewing crisis and massively growing our personnel count, there is little point to growing the fleet.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_830862)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Well as Napoleon said we are a Nation of shopkeepers.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_830966)
2 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I thought it was Hitler who said that? 😂

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830971)
2 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

That was very much in frustration because although he had a vast army..we were essentially trading and blockading his empire into oblivion with the nasty application of economics and industrial capacity..as well as some pretty effective political warfare..greased with gold and silver.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831054)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

That is very true too.

Ambition is a thing too.

Set a fleet size and then staff it properly. There is a lead time to staff as well as ships both are long lead time!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830818)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

not going to happen Fantasyland, but I like it.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831051)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Realistically that is never going to happen.

More T26 is a good thing given the submarine threat. As is more P8. RN has been ASW focussed for a long time and needs to lead on this game.

A batch of 3 more T31 to bring the numbers up – maybe. These take on the River B2 roles.

5-8 T32 which are lean core manned and used to do the River B1 and new roles. Other trades rotate on with the mission modules.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830817)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

T32 won’t happen if it does, I’ll! slam my nuts in the fridge door. We’ve no design, no funding, nowhere to build them. a utter embarrassment and shameful way to run the organisation.

tomuk
tomuk (@guest_830912)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

T32 is just more T31s. It was just the RN sexing up their PowerPoint for the Treasury.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830972)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Don’t do that mate, the NHS is under enough strain without yet another “nut” job in ED.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830829)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

bring echo and enterprise back k into the fleet reconfigured and fitted out to perform a better range of duties .those ships are substantial platforms that have room for more offensive kit. fitted to them

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830840)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Have already heard one might become a harbour training ship to replace Bristol and the other sold off.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_830909)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Crikey an Enterprise to replace Bristol….

Bristol is massive.

Although Bristol has (had) absolutely zero kit on her that was anything like current.

The only thing you would have got out of time on Bristol is moving around a ship. Which has a massive value of its own.

Baker
Baker (@guest_831639)
3 hours ago
Reply to  Hugo

That would make sense.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_830872)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Tempting but I suspect financially not practical; 90m long, 4000 tons with podded thrusters. A better idea might be to build some batch 3 Rivers to enhance our presence in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Guinea. You could take the opportunity to review the armament.

Last edited 2 days ago by Paul.P
Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_830967)
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

With a hangar and hopefully gets some export sales.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_831179)
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I’d second that a 10% increase in size would give a hanger and 57mm on the foredeck.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831209)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonno

If you stretch the batch the batch 2 River it starts to approach the rejected Leander design that BAE submitted for T31, which think was 117m. I’ve always thought that the combat hardening and compartmentalisation that BAE did in morphing the Amazonas into the batch 2 River was an investment in anticipation of getting the T31 order. Anyway, that’s history now. I doubt the RN sees a role for a new class of 3 such ships; wouldn’t 99m would be Khareef corvettes?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831304)
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I thought the Leander design was a bit of a ripper and had a bit of everything on a compact platform. Kind of a muscled up B2 River. Hangar looked too small for a Merlin but okay for a Wildcat. Same kind of length that Babcock and Saab will working on with their new corvette which makes you think there’s still a market for this type.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831317)
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

With hindsight I don’t think it was ever in with a chance – no growth potential. Room for Mk41 vls was never explicitly stated as a requirement for T31 but I suspect it was always what the RN wanted. I have a vague memory that BAE did try to sell a Leander sized ship to Ecuador I think but nothing came of it.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_831612)
9 hours ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yep it would but I suspect she is a bit cramped. If you just drop the full size hanger to one for a drone then the 90.5m version would fit the bill.
Amazonas class for Brazil and Krabi for Thailand, the latter has a 76mm gun and Harpoon missiles.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_830833)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

The problem, they will face block obsolescence in thirty years time.

Steve D
Steve D (@guest_830981)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

Three different flights are anticipated, with the first 3 being the baseline described in the press release, the next 6 (Flight 2) will be upgraded and have additional technology, and the final 6 (Flight 3), will be substantially different, and may not even be based on GCS/T26.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_831025)
2 days ago
Reply to  Steve D

Where do you get this stuff?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830959)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

I’m not sure you can really get a 3-4k tonne frigate worth building..even the new French light frigate is 4500 tonnes and that’s got some compromises the RN would not accept.. 1) Its 4500 tonne french frigates small fight capability is only capable of taking the NH90..a far smaller rotor that the Merlin requirement for any RN escort ( as in 13 foot longer and an extra 8 foot rotor diameter)..so the are would need a larger flight deck and hanger. 2) range.. the French frigate can only go 5000 miles…the are looks for a min of 7000 miles range… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831058)
2 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No point in going less than T31.

BDR suffers if you go small.

Ability to but Cabs and ISOs is also reduced.

Big platforms are more comfortable for crews too!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831048)
2 days ago
Reply to  Markam

I agree that the Rivers should be replaced with larger fighty hulls that can be equipped with sophisticated systems as an adjunct to T45 and T26 who would do the main work.

Even bringing another 32 VLS and 8 box launchers with a help/drone port changes the calculus in a fighty situation. Even if all those things are actually controlled from the high end ship’s systems.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831076)
2 days ago

I would say the rivers have their place..but that’s local waters patrol around UK EEZs and benign environments well away from risks ( western med and North Atlantic). Anything eastern med and points east should be escorts.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
BigH1979
BigH1979 (@guest_831205)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes and potentially Non-RN crewed? Maybe Border Force/Coastguard/Weekend Warrior type set up to relieve RN personnel requirements?

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_831242)
1 day ago
Reply to  Markam

The Kingston Class coastal defence/mine sweepers will need replacing in the coming decade or so. Talk is of a multi-mission corvette to replace them.

The Victoria Class Submarine replacement is the next big naval project for Canada.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_830778)
2 days ago

We should have an escort fleet of 32+ hulls. That was what was deemed minimum required at the end of the cold war in 1998.
Then multiple governments have just cut cut cut.
Some warships we were told were at the end of their service lives, weren’t. HMS Ocean…serving the Brazilians very well. 3x type 23 frigates…still working for Chile, 2x type 22s still serving Romania.
We’ve got to get back upto reasonable numbers again. The threat we are facing isn’t just Russia. It’s a resurgent Sino-Russian axis of evil hell-bent on redefining the world order to their wishes

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830787)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Arguably those Frigates in question and Ocean too are worked far less than their Royal Navy counterparts so will in turn last longer.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_831180)
1 day ago
Reply to  Hugo

Bigger fleet works less than the present over stretched one. Plus you need reserves for the inevitable losses.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_831210)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonno

Course you do. Still has to be some initial investment to either have the reserve personnel or additional crew so that you can field more than half you ships immediately and the rest brought up later.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830824)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

we should also aim to re-establish a Mediterranean fleet with ships based at Gibraltar and hopefully Malta a return to the old base h.m.s maribar on Ireland island in Bermuda which would give us a permanent presence in the Carribbean.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_831181)
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Ain’t going to happen. We should try a floating dock ship alongside HMS Cyprus!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830835)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

batch 2 type 23 configured as destroyers. they would only need a few changes to what they are now. a modern destroyer needs to be fas, equipped to perform in all spheres of warfare land sea and air apert from being old these ships are still the best frigates on the seas.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830843)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

The T23? The Tiny tubs which crews hate and have very little margin for growth? No you can’t make those into destroyers.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831004)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

There is no margin left on a T23 and that’s after removing the 911 trackers!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830973)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Don’t you mean the T26 ?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831143)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

no I mean T23, type 26 could be a cruiser.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831147)
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

T23 has not expansion left..it’s a 4500 ton hull that’s well armed for its size…they are also knackered…yes we need to keep them running..but CAMM is a profoundly good missile…and a T23 is now far more effective than a T42 destroyer ever was at AAW.

Jon
Jon (@guest_830867)
2 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Getting to 32 escorts is easy if you are willing to accept a larger proportion of second tier ships. Let’s say you ringfence £1bn in 2024 terms (increasing annually along with GDP). That money goes to buy two streams: second tier at £400m each delivered one a year, and £600m a year for top tier delivered every 18 months (£900m per unit). We sell second tier ships after 16 years and top tier after 24 years, but only after its replacement is accepted. Escort numbers would rise to a steady state of 32, 16 of each tier, and the cost… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831144)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

we can ring fence any numbers, but if you’re unable to produce those numbers it’s all pointless

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_830783)
2 days ago

We can wish that if there’s ever a second batch of T26s for the RN that they incorporate a more powerful radar like here on the RCAN T26, as it looks nice and compact and I assume it’s quite powerful? Eight T26s is still pretty decent and hopefully a few more T31s and the T32 might eventuate. Like to see T45s get Mk41s and if not then a greater number of CAMM, with additional silos down the sides of the Asters. There also looks like there’s room for FFBNW 4×4 NSM even if only 2×4 NSM are carried most of… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830785)
2 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Don’t think there’s room for any more NSM, there’s alot or equipment they’ve got to fit in the mid of the ship.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831151)
1 day ago
Reply to  Hugo

either way the policy of fitted for bur not with should stop.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_831165)
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Ideally it should. But building ships with unexploited space does have benefits when money can be spent further into their lives.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_830801)
2 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Dream on.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830825)
2 days ago
Reply to  FieldLander

agreed

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_830925)
2 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I wonder if Sampson by itself would work as a radar for T26? It has been stated that CEAFAR is much heavier so presumably could be done at a push.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, T31 is more sensible as an AAW frigate, but just putting the idea out there.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_830976)
2 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Morning SB, yes, there is an AAW variant of the A140 shown on their website. Good for an interim pre T83. I bee the Indonesian A140s have a AAW capability and have also been stretched a few metres.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_831212)
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Don’t think we’ll have a new AAW system (Radars and missiles) till type 83 though. And we’re not gonna put slyver cells on another ship in the mean time.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831305)
1 day ago
Reply to  Hugo

Doesn’t need to be Sylver. It might be more a tier 2 type AAW defence but how posh do you have to get to complement the T45s Samson/Aster? There’s the options of the Anglo-Polish or Italian CAMM/CAMM-ER/MR type systems. With 4 MK41s/ExLS you can get a very decent load out of both missiles paired with a decent radar.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_831334)
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

What decent radar though, we’ve got numerous low end defence radars but Sampsons our only high end system and they’re not going to replicate it at this point.
But ignoring that issue, if we get any more frigates they’ll probably only be general purpose designs, they’re going to be as cheap as they can otherwise there will be none at all.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831008)
2 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Sampson weighs in at around 9 Tonnes spinning at 30RPM. The bearing at the top of the mast for the rotating radar is massive. It needs to be. It takes a lot of loading when the vessel is moving especially in roughers (Gyroscopic principals and all that) There is a reason the T45 mast is that big. Height is one of them, the weight of the radar is another. CEFAR is also big, heavy, and expensive (per plate). It also needs a lot of Chilled water to remove the wild heat, or it will slag itself. Sampson also needs a… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831060)
2 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

T45 blows cooled air up the inside of the mast?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831149)
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I’ve always believed that given proof of the capability of the T45, as second only maybe to the burke, that a designed from scratch T83 is unnecessary and that a upgraded batch 2 type 45 would be more beneficial.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_831211)
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

There’s alot of issues with the T45s that really require a new design to be built. Missile capacity needs to go beyond the 64 T45 could have and there is potentially the need foe a quite hull to perform some ASW work

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830814)
2 days ago

we are useless the MOD slashed the original hoped for number and still goes ahead with 8 and 5 T31. AND the fantasy type 32 and a new destroyer, all of which we can’t deliver. before 2040. incompetence at the highest level how many do we want?how much will they cost? can we deliver them? utter chaos he MOD IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. EVERYONE IN IT AND THOSE connected to it should be removed.

Last edited 2 days ago by Andy reeves
Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_830978)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Talking 2040, aren’t more ships needed by 2030?!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831162)
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

no, they are needed now but 2040, if you plan for more destroyers is more likely

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830815)
2 days ago

And Canadians(and Australians) are making a proper destroyer not a frigate in the hull of a destroyer that is said to be an ASW frigate but only have 1 Merlin as the sole ASW weapon…

Last edited 2 days ago by AlexS
Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_830836)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Apart from the new torpedo carrying missile on the wish list.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830873)
2 days ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

Torpedo carrying missile should have not be something thought so late.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830841)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

We have destroyers. We don’t need it to be an AAW vessel. For them they either have no destroyers or only a few.
Type 23 only has one Merlin and short range torpedoes, does that mean it’s not an ASW vessel

Last edited 2 days ago by Hugo
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830874)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

6 destroyers, 4 at maximum at service any time, one loss or damage and even worse. While other peer navies, even inferior ones arm their frigates with AAW.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830878)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

They arm their Frigates for AAW because in alot of cases they have no Destroyer type vessels at all. Looking at some of the notable fleets in Europe, Germany follows a similar philosophy to us, France and Italy do give their frigates more notable AAW capability but at the cost of very low missile capacity, all the Fremms have 16 Asters barring the Fremm DAs which were given 32 to make up for only have 2 Horizons. Spain is similar, F110s will have Spy 7 but only 16 cells. There are always trade offs, and I’d argue the T26 while… Read more »

Last edited 2 days ago by Hugo
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830884)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Next 5 French FDI will have Aster 30 because they saw the light. So they will have 9 RN still did not. Italians have will have Aster 30 in 16 ships.

If Type 23 have same capability and that is the objective why do not make a similar, slight bigger frigate? and instead make a monstrosity?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830886)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

A monstrosity, now you’re just being ridiculous, and I don’t think you understand what growth margins and also just better accomdation are. Just look around, all Frigates are getting bigger. Also back tracking to your slight against the T26, the French Fremms also only have 1 hangar. And addressing the FDIs, and the Italian ships. Capacity issues again, 16 cells across the board barring the Horizon class. A whole seperate issue is that Aster 30 doesn’t go in mk41 cells and we won’t be selecting a mk41 AAW missile till the T83 program so there is nothing longer range for… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830890)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

The Italian FREMM have 2 hangars for medium helicopters, the Constellations will have a medium helicopter and a medium heli drone(Lynx size).
. Yes they have less magazine depth but all FREMM have space for 32 Sylver.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830893)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Advantages and disadvantages. Its good the Italian design does have 2 hangars, they’ll be able to exploit their larger naval Helo fleet.
It may he Ffbnw on the Italian Fremms but from what I understand the space is now used for accommodation, so unlikely to be exploited anytime soon, especially since they haven’t chosen for any of the new Fremms under construction or planned to increase that.
But overall alot of solid Frigate designs in the European sphere, and always something they can learn from eachother in future.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831009)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

A certain T23 has just sailed having been fitted for a Heli Drone …whilst retaining its Wildcat which can do Surface Strike, Anti Drone Air and ASW strike.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831063)
2 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Interesting!

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830930)
2 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Monstrosity in question of size for a similar ASW Type 23 capability – excluding the at moment mythical ASW missile.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830940)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Again, crew comfort and upgradability.
And the T26 is not just an ASW platform, it gives the surface fleet for the first time some serious strike capability via its mk41.
Also don’t see how ASW missiles are mythical, we have numerous examples.

tomuk
tomuk (@guest_830916)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

T26 will have 48 CAMM and 24 so far empty Mk41 for AAW capability.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830929)
2 days ago
Reply to  tomuk

48 CAMM is equivalent 12 Aster 30 in space department :)))

tomuk
tomuk (@guest_830945)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Are you going to fit 6 Aster 30 in a softlaunch silo behind the funnel?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_831525)
14 hours ago
Reply to  tomuk

I think the Iver H. have Sparrow VLS in a similar place and Tomahawk for T31 when they arrive.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_831659)
1 hour ago
Reply to  tomuk

Aster 30 is not a soft launch missile.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_831010)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

CAMM is…wait for it…An ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILE.
So T26 is capable of doing AAW.
CAMM is also capable of Surface Strike.

If you mean that a T26 cannot do Fleet Area Defence …that’s a different thing all together. However, if you fitted CAMM MR/ER that would rapidly change and be a lot cheaper and easier to achieve.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_831156)
1 day ago
Reply to  AlexS

destroyers and frigates are the mainstay of every navy and always will be the limiting of type 45 to just 6 ships was a major blunder especially then accepting the billion pound price of of a T26

tomuk
tomuk (@guest_830914)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

It isn’t the hull of a destroyer it is very much an optimised ASW frigate.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830827)
2 days ago

and should still have a permanent Mediterranean squadron, Carribbean squadron. and a china squadron(or near) to it. basically it’s called ambition.

Last edited 2 days ago by Andy reeves
Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_830812)
2 days ago

I’ll be fascinated by how long they take to produce them

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830830)
2 days ago

It seems the new infographic drops the CAMM missiles and have a RAM instead.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_830857)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Perhaps they are going to sell some to the USN 😉

jack
jack (@guest_830852)
2 days ago

how can they justify keeping the Halifax class around until 2050?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_830856)
2 days ago
Reply to  jack

I think the ships themselves will probably decide they’re knackered long before that date lol

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_831133)
1 day ago
Reply to  Hugo

You are correct sir. This has happened in the past to the RCN. The Protecteur and Iroquois class for example. There was nothing in those instances lined up to replace them though. At least this program will be in place.

Irving does have to speed up construction though. 25 years is not in my view realistic or pragmatic. The Canadian government is doing this for votes in the economically challenged Atlantic Canada and Irving is taking advantage of it.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_830931)
2 days ago
Reply to  jack

It is because the last Type 26 Destroyer will be build by 2050. I think this just a bureaucratic rule. World will be very different by 2050.

Drew murrY
Drew murrY (@guest_830965)
2 days ago

Frigates,frigates frigates,,let’s get the rn back to having some proper warships like a “tico class”destroyer .proper fire power ,for an unsteady world.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_830975)
2 days ago

Lets be very honest..the min standard for a peacetime fleet was 32 escorts and 12 SSNs…anything less as we move to a Cold War or pre war period is not just fantasy fleets it’s delusional…. HMG should be working every way possible to maximise the number of escorts ( not anything we can do about the SSNs for a generation). But in reality although it’s going to cost a fortune the T23s should be keep running until they fall apart or the escort fleet can be build up to 32 newer escorts…and every available slip and capability should be used… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_831072)
2 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The rest is politics…..can Starmer deal with his baying mob demanding more yet cash for NHS and schools?

Can he fund RN growth (ships and people)?

I fear it will constantly be put on the ‘too hard’ pile and we will see the last years of T26/F31/FSSS orders as being a golden age of grown up ship / fleet building.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831084)
1 day ago

I would say you’re right..apart from the fact I would lay good odds the west will be in a shooting war with china a round Taiwan within the decade. That shooting war will inevitably drag into a long term global naval campaign over years…with a probable outcome of a very unsettled peace in which the side that got the bad end of the peace treaty ( losses ) will just build up its navy for round two creating a navel arms race….when you have two massive power blocks separated by oceans with interpenetration of “war triggering red lines”…navel conflict and… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_831648)
2 hours ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“…will just build up its navy for round two creating a navel arms race…”

Nonsense, the PRC has got a severe demographic time-bomb of very low birth rate, and a rapidly ageing workforce, in store over the next few decades. The majority of it’s population was born in the 1960/70s.
It won’t be able to afford to rebuild its fleet in a decades time.

Last edited 2 hours ago by Meirion X
Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831685)
1 minute ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Well unfortunately that demographic timebomb is a driver…what do you think a nation or body politic with a know trajectory to the hight of its geopolitical and geostrategic power will do to its enemies when it knows that after that point of power it will decline…the CCP are not rushing through one of the biggest armament programmes ever seen just to get to 2035 and go “ ho look our demographics is now a problem..we will just scale back and fade” they will fight a war knowing their timeframe of greatest power…you don’t need to immediately fear your enemy as… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_831184)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’d like to see that. Would you have to take back Portland or have some based in either Scotland or Gibraltar to have adequate dry docks etc.