The Type 26 frigate represents the future backbone of the Royal Navy and a massive leap forward in terms of flexibility of surface vessels enjoyed by the service.

The City class will replace 8 of the 13 Type 23 frigates of the Royal Navy and export orders are being sought after by BAE. The programme has been underway since 1998, initially under the name ‘Future Surface Combatant’. The programme was brought forward in the 2008 budget at the expense of Type 45 destroyers 7 and 8.

The original working model for the ship put the length at 141 metres long and gave a displacement close to 7,000 tonnes. In late 2010 it was reported that the specifications had been reduced in order to bring down the cost from £500m to £250-350m per ship. By 2011 new specification details began to emerge of a 5,400 tonne ship emphasising flexibility and modularity. The new design is believed to be 149m long, a top speed of more than 26 knots and accommodation for up to 200 people. It is expected to have 60 days endurance and have a range of 7,000 miles at 15 knots.

Early concept design for the vessel.

The propulsion system of the RN ships will have a gas turbine and four high speed diesel generators driving two electric motors in a ‘CODLOG’ arrangement, ‘CODLOG’ simply stands for Combined diesel-electric or gas.

In 2012 Rolls Royce redesigned the well known MT30 used in the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers t enable its usage in smaller ships, such as Type 26. It is now known that the vessels will use the MT30. From what I learned at a RINA presentation, BAE believe that some potential customers would prefer to lose a few knots by opting to use cheaper engines. No foreign customers are forthcoming yet however.

It’s no secret that the Type 26 is designed with modularity and flexibility in mind to enhance versatility across a wide range of operations ranging from counter piracy and disaster relief operations to high intensity warfighting. The latest BAE design has a large amidships mission bay instead of the stern well deck featured in previous designs. BAE have commented regarding the mission bay:

“A key feature is the ship’s flexible mission space, which can accommodate up to four 12 metre sea boats, a range of manned and unmanned air, surface or underwater vehicles or up to 11 20ft containers or ‘capability modules’, and the most advanced sensors available to the fleet.”

Imagery via BA

The relocation of the bay amidships from stern could possibly mean a decrease in the volume of space available to the equipment carried but the new design would seem to have space enough for a few large boats or other large-scale systems and material.

An interesting bit of information I learned at the presentation was that they’re planning the Type 26 to comfortably be able to deploy SDV’s (swimmer delivery vehicles) for the deployment of special forces, this would make sense given that they have also upped the accommodation facilities on the ship to take around 200 people.

The Type 26 will use the Type 997 Artisan 3D search radar, Sonar 2087 (towed array sonar) and Sea Ceptor (CAMM, common anti-air modular missile) air-defence missiles launched via a vertical launching system (VLS).

The ship is expected to be armed with BAE’s 5″/54 calibre Mark 45 main gun. It will also be armed with two Phalanx CIWS (close in weapons system), two 30mm DS30M Mark 2’s and the standard complement of miniguns and general-purpose machine guns.

The Type 26 will have Sea Ceptor silo’s on the bow and at the funnel of the vessel. Additionally, it will carry a 16 cell MK 41 VLS positioned behind the Sea Ceptor silo’s. It will also house yet to be developed anti-ship missiles in the “main strike” VLS it has been suggested by various sources.

Typically, the Merlin HM2 will normally be carried by the Type 26 although mission requirements may see it hosting the naval Wildcat helicopter or a Chinook, it must however be noted that the Chinook would not fit in the hangar but it would fit on deck.

It stands to reason that crewing requirements will also be determined by the various unmanned systems that the ship will one day be expected to operate.

A Type 26 frigate.

Assuming unmanned air systems will fly intelligence missions from the Type 26, decisions would have to be made on whether processing of the information will occur onboard or on land.

According to ‘Naval Drones International’:

“A final design consideration will be the proper mix of manned to unmanned vehicles each frigate will embark. In the case of LCS’ aviation systems, a ratio of three Fire Scouts to one manned helo was chosen to allow for 24 hour air coverage based on approximately seven hours of endurance for Fire Scout and three hours of endurance for the MH-60.

The manned/unmanned ratio must also take into account factors such as the payloads and sensors required for each mission set, and the need for a man on the scene in certain operations such as search and rescue. Because the Type 26 has excess design capacity and flexibility, these operational decisions can be made prior to each deployment.”

In conclusion, it is my belief that the frigates will certainly meet and even exceed the next generation mission requirements of the Royal Navy and also be available for export, though sadly no country has yet expressed any significant interest in ordering the vessel.

The Type 26 will be an adaptable, powerful and flexible frigate with a wide array of cutting edge sensors and weapons designed to help it effectively and efficiently meet the evolving mission requirements inherent to modern warfare.

The first three will be HMS Glasgow, HMS Cardiff and HMS Belfast.

83
Leave a Reply

avatar
28 Comment threads
55 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
38 Comment authors
ShaunSamDavid DunlopRobertDavid E Flandry Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Julian
Guest
Julian

“The Type 26 will have Sea Ceptor silos on the bow and at the funnel of the vessel. Additionally, it will carry a 16 cell MK 41 VLS positioned behind the Sea Ceptor silo’s.” That’s new info isn’t it? I think speculation on the number of Mk41 had been bouncing around between either 16 or 24 but the impression that I got was that 24 was the consensus for what had ended up in the final RN design. If that’s true then hearing it is now 16 is, to me, pretty disappointing. Also, if it is true, I would be… Read more »

Callum
Guest
Callum

It’s probably just a mistake by the author. Every other source quotes 24 Mk41 cells, I can’t see the specification being pared down now just after the first batch has been ordered and started construction.

What worries me more is that there’s still no mention of an ASROC type weapon so that the class can actually engage submarines without relying on an embarked help. An ideal mix would be something like 8x Spearfish ASROC, 8x Tomahawk, and 8x LRASM, or 16x Perseus in place of the last two.

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

16-24 or 10 they could bloody put 40 and most of them would stay empty cause in Royal Navy traditions we build ship for purpose, just not armed with it..

Matt
Guest
Matt

It’s most definitely 24 Mk41 VLS. This information in this report is incorrect.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Your Correct: This from the MoD HMS Cardiff announcement.

The announcement also comes as BAE Systems have awarded Lockheed Martin a contract to equip the Type 26 with the only system of its kind capable of launching anti-air, anti-submarine, surface-to-surface and strike-length missiles. Three MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems will be fitted on each ship. The Royal Navy has ordered an initial nine modules for the first three ships, including HMS Cardiff.

Each ‘system’ is eight cells, three on each ship

Ben P
Guest
Ben P

Latest ship renders from mid last year show 24.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Yep, 24. Buried in here is a reference to BAE having just ordered 9 Mk41 systems for the first 3 ships, which I interpret to mean 3×8 for each ship.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/march/01/180301-defence-secretary-names-new-warship-hms-cardiff

Julian
Guest
Julian

Great. Thanks for all the replies. That’s good news. There are many uses for Mk41 including cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and ASROC type weapons. As far as I am aware we actually don’t have a single one of those weapons systems that T26 could carry right now (our Tomahawks are submarine launched and I am unsure whether they could realistically be converted to Mk41 versions). Presumably that will be addressed between now and the first vessel going into service. At least having 24 tubes gives greater capacity for carrying multiple missile types in reasonable numbers if/when stuff is added to… Read more »

Ian
Guest
Ian

T-26s are the ship we should be focusing on, they look immensely capable. Submarine and anti-shipping warfare are the quickest ways to harm the UK.

A UK appropriate navy would have;

24 x T-26
12 x T-45
12 x OPV
12 x SSNs

I have no time for the T-31

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

All you need to do Ian is find around £20 to £30bn bn for capital costs, an extra £5bn to £8bn in annual running costs and around 10000 extra personnel.

Got any ideas?

Ian
Guest
Ian

Yes Mike, Restore pre-financial crash budget proportions between defence and foreign aid £7bn. Stop further reductions in corporation tax £4bn, reverse last inheritance tax cut £1-2bn, move annual pension rises to average earnings £2-3bn, introduce foreign property tax £8bn. That’s £22-£24b and not an earned income tax rise in sight or UK job lost as a result. Take your figures and assume £2bn a year capex on an aggressive 15 year program and £8bn in opex that’s £10bn pa. I would put another £8bn into rest of military including additional navy assets such as HLPs and maintain a £3%GDP military… Read more »

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

It has been shown that reducing corporation tax rates actually increases tax revenue, (obviously there is optimum point that raises the maximum amount of revenue just like income tax), huge political cost in changing the state pension triple lock, introducing a property tax would see a collapse in property prices and drop in tax revenue and so on.

Every tax cut or increase has economic consequences to tax revenue, may I suggest you haven’t taken account of that.

Also you did not point out where the extra 10000 military personnel were going to come from.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Hi Mike, The Govt argument that the lower the Corp tax rate the greater the tax take is a fraud. For sure the Laffe curve exists but the UK increase in CT tax take over the last half decade is almost entirely due to the recovery of profits after the financial crash – not the reduction in rates. Corp profits would be enhanced by this program not reduced and better paid jobs would benefit those areas of the UK needing them most in the north and the coasts. As for where the personnel comes from – nothing like a successful… Read more »

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Thanks for the feedback, my own opinion is that we should raise the maximum amount of sustainable tax revenue in the medium to long term.

If taxes are to high then they raise plenty for a a year or two but beyond that they destroy tax revenue streams, to low and they fail to raise sufficient revenue at all.

We need an enterprise based economy that generates well paid jobs, investment and tax. The state should an effective regulator of that economy not an owner of it.

Ian
Guest
Ian

No argument from me on tax principle Mike. I would add that a pro enterprise agenda is not just about CT rates. It’s skills, infra, health of economy, demand, rule of law, environmental factors etc.

Gfor
Guest
Gfor

Mike, the one thing this country really needs (after a strong defence) is a readjustment of property prices to a more realistic, sensible level. The triple lock pension issue is more evidence of popularity politics over doing the right thing.
And as for the state being an effective regulator of the economy, how do you think that is going, and has been going for the last few decades? Pretty poorly for a large section of the population I would say.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Ian and Gfor all very good points of view.

I believe the state should aim to be an effective regulator of the economy to ensure that economy acts in the best interests of vast majority of its citizens.

Sadly as we saw from the 2008 banking crisis despite being told their was no more boom and bust and that no UK bank could fail that was complete bull manure.

We vote in these idiots, maybe we should hold them to account for what they say and do.

David Steeper
Guest

Mr Saul sir you’ve won on a knockout. Well done.

Albion
Guest
Albion

Plus move the capital cost of the new Trident boats back into central funding as per pre SDSR2010

Levi Goldsteinberg
Guest
Levi Goldsteinberg

The last thing this country needs is even higher taxes; that would have a horrible effect on our economy

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Ha!

For that list how about reducing the army to a Home Defence force only.

Then having a big RN, RAF, RM, and SF.

Quite appealing to me personally but will never happen.

I’d be thankful if the RN get 8 T26. But I believe they will get 6 and extra T31 get ordered.

andy
Guest
andy

my thoughts are the same as we were supposed to get 12 T45 like for like as the 2 we lost in the Falklands were not replaced and batches 1-3 4-6 were ordered and completed with hulls 7 and 8 about to be laid but then stopped so i think the T26 will end up being the same as the costs will spiral so greedy BAE can have more cash in pockets for little return and then cry they have no work…if BAE had brains and were not so greedy they could produce ships for the fair amount of money… Read more »

Callum
Guest
Callum

Yet another person blaming BAE for the navy’s procurement issues. Costs spiraled on the T45 because it was an almost entirely new design, using something like 80 or 90% new components. It was a massive risk, compared to the Type 26, which is using mostly components already in the fleet like Artisan and Sonar 2087. The only “new” components are the Mk45 and Mk41, but both of those are in widespread use with our allies, who we can use as a source of expertise on integration. A government committee found that most of the blame was on the MoD for… Read more »

Ian
Guest
Ian

Agreed. Developing complex, technically advanced warships in very small numbers is one of the dumbest things to do and that’s a Govt failing.

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

Ya after promising to build 13 Type 26’s then going down to 8, they’ll really piss of the Scotts if they go down to 6, and then they’ll really vote for independence after that. Great idea.. lol

Alan Reid
Guest
Alan Reid

Jassy, Not still going on about Scottish independence! LOL

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

A little humor in this ridiculously inempt funding cog never hurt anyone..

raftastic
Guest

Cheers for the fantasy fleet. Be sure to pass on this insightful take on RN shipping and manning to the 1st SL.

I’m sure he’ll get straight on it.

:rolls eyes:

Tim sinnett
Guest

Nobody thinks our fantasy fleets on here will actually happen, but I agree with Ian that the numbers stated should be a reality for a country of our place and financial clout. Navy followed by airforce should be our priority, smaller compact but lethal army.
If restructured and managed well we could have a similar fleet in 20 years time.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Yeah – its about half the RN strength in 1980 and equivalent to Chinese naval production in the last five years

:rolls eyes:

Ian
Guest
Ian

Yes, I have written to my MP and regularly lobby defence minded MPs on Twitter

Ben P
Guest
Ben P

Are you here to just troll or what? I am sure many people here lobby in their own ways. This is a news website and people discuss the news. Contribute or be quiet.

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

Add another 2 QEC’s and 4 LHD’s to that list..

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

agreed but the chances of it ever happening are like finding hens teeth

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

i had my doubts about the retiring of the early trafalgars, my son was on torbay, and the consensus was that it was good for another 5 years at least. like the swiftsures, used as recently is the libya conflict, do we retire assets too soon? i believed the youngest type 42’s, given major t 45 upgrades could have maintained the fleet numbers, not to mention the far too early sale of the type 22’s

Shaun
Guest
Shaun

Why are we revamping type 23 s ,, with sea scepter, better radar and better comms , if there sell by date is around the corner ????

trackback

[…] post A Guide to the Type 26 ‘City class’ Frigate appeared first on UK Defence […]

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Just expanding on a point made by someone recently on here concerning the Mission Bay.

If it can carry SDV and SF is all well and good but, as 1SL has indicated, T31 will allow our higher spec ships T45 and T26 to their main roles, that being ASW, AAW, for carriers, Trident, and GIUK gap.

What use is a SDV there? That implies the ship will leave the carrier group to deploy the SDV.

I visualise that role with a T31, SD Victoria, or a Survey ship.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Am starting to see the mission bays and means of launching and recovering off board remote vehicles as key features for Type 31 as well as Type 26 I think. I was struck by the large mission bay in the Leander graphic and the preference for crane and container space over helo hangar on the River 2. ARCIMS type ‘dipped’ sonars launched from a Type 31 could give it significant anti submarine capability so a carrier task force might be less dependent on a Type 26 escort. I would be interested to know about the remote and networking capabilties in… Read more »

DaveyB
Guest
DaveyB

I believe that the Mission Bay can be used for SDV type of vehicles. You can extrapolate from that that unmanned under sea vehicles can also be deployed eg mine clearing etc. It would be interesting see what the profit ratio BAE have levied on these ships. Why do they have to make a profit on these ships at all, as they are supposed to be supporting the National interest? Notwithstanding the cost of R&D put into the design, which is BS as they have been playing around with the design since the T23s were in service i.e. the last… Read more »

Gfor
Guest
Gfor

Davey, forgive me for saying this, but doing something for no profit is not really the way that these things work. What you are suggesting as something akin to communism, and look how that went in the USSR, and is noe going on in China. An even worse brand of disguised capitalism. I am a critic of BAe, in that they build some very capable platforms but are such a monopoly their costs and timeacales are at times obscene. They are shielded from any criticism by senior military officers who then go on to work for them on retirement, and… Read more »

dadsarmy
Guest
dadsarmy

I’d say just because they can carry and deploy SDVs doesn’t mean they have to, it keeps the flexibility open, and with lesser numbers of just about everything, flexibility – modularity – is key to making the most of all assets.

The other thing of course is turning them around faster for maintenance, repair and refits, and potentially reducing the resulting sea trials and working out times. Which if the T26 is cut from 8 to 6, will be absolutely vital. A compact navy has no time for leisurely cycles.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

or put it in a bay class

Branaboy
Guest
Branaboy

The Royal Navy I think should be sized in following manner by 2040; 2x CATOBAR Aircraft Carrier of ~80,000 tonnes, with F35C and Rafale or Navalized Typhoons, E-3 AWACs, Helicopters etc. 2x QE class jump jet Carriers 3x LHD ~22-27K tonne class with Ski-Jump for F35 (have about 5 on board) 4x LPD – add 2 more updated Albion class vessels 6x new Type 50 Cruisers with 127mm naval gun primarily anti-air and anti-ballistic missile defence ships (Aster 30 & 45) with some anti-ship (LSARM) and anti-sub capabilities 6x Type 45 Destroyer as present (upgrade gun to 5″ (127mm), add… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

type 27? we’ can’t even afford the t26, why do we need 6 bay class?, its a fantasy fleet. we’d be better with 18 assorted frigates, 8 destroyers a LHP,10 ssn, 4 sbn 5 tide class.2 LCD’s q.e class with ramps removed and a catobatar V.L.S FIT.

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

Those are worthy goals, but it more likely the UK will claim Mars for the Empire than fund such a navy. Better goals are to replace the LPDs with 2 large LPH/LPDs, add another SSN, and 8 SSKs, not so large as to require large crews. Fit the QE class with more F-35s. One more patrol ship to take care of pirates, smuggling, sovereignty patrol, but for gods sake put a hangar on it for a Wildcat.

Grubbie
Guest
Grubbie

“Exceed the next generation mission requirements” There’s your answer to why we can only afford 8 and can’t export them.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

My own personal opinion which is worth no more than anybody else’s, is that defence spending should be increased to 3% of GDP along with wholesale reform of the MOD.

This would be funded by reductions, in DFID buyer, reductions in welfare payments, cutting higher rate pensions tax relief, a ban on all immigrants claiming on welfare benefits and NHS treatment for 5 years and simplification of the income tax system.

Ian
Guest
Ian

I’m always confused why people are upset by higher rate pension relief.

Lower and higher are tax payers are treated entirely equally.

A lower rate tax payer (20p) keeps more of their pound (80p) and claim all of their tax back to return to £1

A higher rate tax payer (45p) keeps less of their £1 (55p) and claim all their tax back to return to £1

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Wealthier people in our society will always invest for their retirement no matter what the pension tax relief, in my opinion that relief is just money thrown away by the Government. The government doesn’t need to give incentives to high tax payers to save.

It’s the low income groups that need to be forced/encouraged to save for their retirement through compulsory contributions from themselves and employers into state regulated low cost pension schemes.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Fair comment. High rate tax payers tho start at £33,501 so not exactly what most people think of as high income.

Julian
Guest
Julian

£45,001. You need to add the £11,500 personal allowance to the basic rate tax band to get the figure at which one would start paying higher rate tax. I agree though that today being a higher rate tax payer doesn’t imply the same level of wealth relative to the national average salary as it did in the past.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Yes – my wording was misleading if not the point

OJ
Guest
OJ

We have 12xT42, so we replace them with 12xT45. Well, let’s retire 4xT42 without replacement, then we can say we have 8xT42 which we will replace with 8xT45. Then that gets cut to 8 for 6. We have 16xT23, lets retire 3 stupidly early, then we can say 13xT23 will be replaced with 13xT26. Then we change to 8xT26 and 5xT31. Then we cut that to 6xT26 and 5xT31. Saving grace of the T31 is it’s a fixed contact for five ships, so we will see at least five. It seems quite evident that 8xT26 is insufficient but even a… Read more »

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

You are right on both counts; 8 Type 26 is not enough and we will not get any more. They are too expensive. Here’s a thought: that anti submarine strategy will change to use networked UXV’s – kind of like mobile deployable wireless SOSUS networks. These could be launched and recovered from cheaper ships’ mission bays, like Type 31. Right now I think we are in a technology cut over period where the new technology isnt quite there yet and best in class anti submarine defection by surface ships is still Type 26 and 2087 towed array but as the… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

after the falklands the defence spend went briefly to 5%.

Tim sinnett
Guest

My hope is that once autonomous platforms have matured and become a cost effective reality, the full potential of all the redundancy built into our latest ships will be realised. For example, one type 26 or even type 31 could escort Ampibious group in all but heavy war time duties. This would be enabled via launch of several armed uuavs that can lurk under the waves searching for any ssn/ ssk. flying uav drones launched to scout and provide over horizon radar and intercept. Rolls Royce are developing autonomous ships, we could have one armed with additional missile cells for… Read more »

Julian
Guest
Julian

It’s an interesting vision of the future but if the escorting of an amphibious group is being done by swarms of sub-surface, surface and airborne uavs then wouldn’t a T31 or even a T31 be a bit small and over-speced and maybe vessels that look more like an RFA solid support ship in terms of internal volume and deck space might be more appropriate as motherships to launch, recover, maintain and control large numbers of uavs? That would then actually free up the T26s to do what was one of their design goals, namely general purpose frigates capable of looking… Read more »

Tim sinnett
Guest

I get your point, and yes you would imagine a designated platform would be better, but having the capability albeit more limited will at least give the frigates more purpose in the second half of their life. I see this as the stepping stone to that and I’m sure we will start seeing some design concepts for ships that purely operate uavs appearing soon, but likely 20 years before we have an operational fleet of them.

Ron5
Guest
Ron5

Strange choice of graphic. A picture from Bae would have fewer inaccuracies.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

I was reading an article on Breaking defence yesterday around the US budget and their targets and broadly speaking I think the UK should seek to have 25% of the US capability. US 355 ship navy – UK 85 US Combat Aircraft 1200 – UK 300 Where we diverge massively with this ratio is in the volume of people employed (hence why I haven’t published the people numbers). With a bit of foresight and a rebalance to a stronger navy and Air Force I think we could get close to these numbers. Separately I noticed the GDP figure for last… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

Pacman27 – While I wouldn’t disagree with your main point of relating our defence capability to the US model I wonder why you choose 25% when as a country we are 1/6th (or 16%) the size in GDP?
Having said that the USA funds a very large military for more reasons than just Defence. Some of which we may not wish to copy let alone afford.

Phil
Guest
Phil

In terms of what we’ve got, and what we “could” reasonably argue for – bearing in mind paying for it and manning it: 2 x Carriers 6 x T45 12 x T26 6 x T31 6 x OPV 8 x SSN 4 x SSBN (or – if we move away from Trident to a new Cruise system with low yield small nuclear warheads then 12 x SSN, 0 x SSBN) Somebody needs to tell the Army that any continental engagement will only be in concert with Allies, not a solo effort – so the Army needs to lose the plethora… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Phil you are so right re the 1st Division. I have been banging on about that here for ages! That formation is un deployable and has not a single Combat Service or Combat Service Support formation assigned to it under A2020 Refine. It is purely a division of brigades of Infantry Battalions kept for Cap badge reasons. The Strike Brigade concept is flawed as you say due to a mix of wheels and tracks. Tracks provide all the firepower with Ajax pretending to be a “light tank” in “Medium Armour Regiments” God help us, but being tracked cannot have the… Read more »

JohnStevens
Guest
JohnStevens

I think we have to be realistic about the future size of the Royal Navy.. 6 type 45’s, 8 type 26 and perhaps 8 type 31’s (22 escorts) plus 5 ocean going patrol vessels and the RFA ships carrying out lighter tasks: This i could imagine happening but not these totals some people come up with like 30-40 escorts, just not going to happen. But i think with 22 escorts and the patrol vessels and at times support from other NATO escorts and other friendly nations, the RN would be able to carry out their tasks, ‘yes’, a much smaller… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Agree. Too much fantasy fleets here.

A smaller escort force but with assets like SSN, Carriers and SSBN? Yes please.

Just need to keep RM 3 Cdo Bde and the LPD’s.

JohnStevens
Guest
JohnStevens

just to add to my comments: Agree with phil about escort numbers, certainly (24) is doable also, but i would say that figure of 22-24 would be max..

dadsarmy
Guest
dadsarmy

As a quickie, SDVs are something Scotland should be working on, bearing in mind the existing skills in semi-submersibles for rigs, and an increasing need for decomissioning.

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

Building 8 Type 26 is just not enough.. 16 wouldn’t be to much, and I even would go advise far to say they should be in continuous production once the first 8 ships have been completed.. If that means they build one every 2 years for the next 40 years then so be it. But we need a Frigates fleet that can be continuously deployed around the world in great numbers that won’t hinder our need of them with our two carriers..

John Hartley
Guest
John Hartley

BAE had a proposed AAW version of the T26. There was a mocked up picture of it that I cannot find. Does anyone know where it is? & what were the specs of that proposed anti- air version?

trackback

[…] To read more… […]

Be02ese
Guest

I’ve written to my local MP and told him we should immediately the Death Star, I’ve said we should have a minimum of 12 Super Star Destroyers, with a further 28 regular Star Destroyers. Each Star Destroyer should be able to deploy 2 brigade strength AT AT sqns with supporting AT ST.

Stop with the bloody fantasy fleets. I want this, we could do that. Blah blah blah.

Get with reality and get behind the Armed Forces and let’s focus on maximising what we have/are getting rather than cry about what might have been.

Rant over

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Brilliant. Made my night shift that!

Tim sinnett
Guest

If the MOD had procured wisely and in a more cost effective manner over the last few decades, these ‘fantasy fleets’ would have been a reality. They are merely what many feel we should have and afford from the worlds 5th biggest defence budget. And it’s fun as well…

Rob N
Guest
Rob N

The T26 is not a risk free besighn. The hull is new, the gas turbine is repackaged from QE. The Mk45 will have a new atumatic feed system thar will cur out human loadding. The MK 41 VLS has not been fitted to an RN ship before. Also it is CODOG.

The kit off the T23 should keep some costs down. I suspect we will get the full 8 T26 but the T31 will only get 5 and not more as suggested in the SDR.

It is getting more difficult for HMG to turn a blind eye to Russia and China.

Bob
Guest
Bob

As an American, I believe you cats may want to get your defense needs established without looking to the western side of the Atlantic. As North America achieves petroleum independence, the likelihood of US involvement in foreign wars will decline no matter which political party is governing.
Best of Luck

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

With only 8 of the 13 needed to be built, it’s going to be an overextended backbone, and a soonerly run backbone that won’t last 30 years cause they’ll be over used in 15 years for lack of sufficient numbers too task..

Robert
Guest
Robert

I just don’t get the RN. Why don’t they follow the American example and put AT LEAST 64 strike length VLS cells on their ships. God forbid they actually put 96. Even the Daring class has only 48. BUILD SHIPS THAT CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETING!! He’ll, you don’t have that many as it is.

Robert
Guest
Robert

I just don’t get the RN. Why don’t they follow the American example and put AT LEAST 64 strike length VLS cells on their ships. God forbid they actually put 96. Even the Daring class has only 48. BUILD SHIPS THAT CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETING!! Hell, you don’t have that many as it is.

DAVID DUNLOP
Guest
DAVID DUNLOP

FUTURE CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT-THE ONLY OPTION Now that the Canadian government has entered the decision phase for the bids entered for the rights to build 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships, it is time to give an opinion as to which of the three bids entered will be the best fit for Canada’s Future Naval Fleet. The backbone of this future Canadian Naval Combat Fleet will be vessels that will see Canada through the next few decades, and must be judiciously chosen. There are several new designs of warships being presented to Canada and pros and cons with all of… Read more »

trackback

[…] We have a guide on the Type 26 Frigate, available here. […]

David Dunlop
Guest
David Dunlop

So glad to see the Australian Government has finally chosen the BAE Type 26 ASW Frigate for it’s RAN!! I believe it makes Canada’s decision easier between BAE, Spanish & Dutch Frigates. The Type 26 was the correct decision by the Australian’s and if Canada makes it’s own decision by the Summer/Fall of this year, hopefully it will also chose the Type 26. Just think, between Australia’s 9 Type 26 & Canada’s 15 Type 26 Surface Combatants, both countries will have 3 times as many Type 26 Frigates as the British will have. 32 sister ships afloat!!

Sam
Guest
Sam

Hey guys love reading the thread. Just wondering if you guys could clarify if the total number of sea captor on the type 26 is 24 or 48? Info seems a bit confusing and not always consistent? Cheers