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.

80 COMMENTS

  1. “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 interested to know whether that is a hard limit of 16 or if it is a case of 16 installed + 8 FFBNW.

    Looking at the render in the article, it does seem to show 3 x 8-cell modules = 24 total. Is that just an old render used in the article? What’s the definitive info here?

    • 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.

      • 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..

      • 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

    • 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 the inventory.

  2. 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

    • 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?

      • 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 spend.

        This would leaving another £6bn into police, borders, fire, security and justice.

        But that’s me.

        • 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.

          • 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 well funded organisation to drive recruitment!

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

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

    • Instead of dreaming of pretend navies on a forum, have you actually done anything positive to advance your aims of increased ship numbers?

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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 and maybe we could have more which means more work for BAE but they like to cut of there nose to spite there face..

        • 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 being overly optimistic with the projected costs, and for negotiating such a poorly thought out deal. Blaming a private company like BAE for charging more when technical issues arose is illogical, you can’t expect any business to take a hit worth millions of pounds when their contract says they can charge more to cover it.

          In short: there is little to no comparison between T45 and T26, and stop whining about a business making money when the problems are caused by the government.

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

      • 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

    • 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:

      • 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.

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

        :rolls eyes:

    • 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

  3. 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.

    • 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 this area.

    • 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 twenty years!

      • 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 politicians who we know have agendas.
        However, in our country we can see roughly how much we pay for what product, and although there should be more transparency about through life costings, we as taxpayers should be able to challenge and influence policy.
        Much as in my dealings with vendors and purchasers, what is wrong with a fair price for a good product?

    • 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.

  4. 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 anti-ship capability
    6x Type 27 Destroyer Frigates (7,000 tonne upscaled Type 26) armed with anti air and anti-ship (replace Type 45 at lower end)
    10x Type 26 Frigates
    12x Type 31 Frigates
    12x Fast (40 knot sprint speed) Missile armed Corvettes based on VT Ceerbus designwith 76mm guns, anti-ship missiles, anti-sub and limited anti-air for area denial missions around carriers (basically aimed at littoral areas and facing off Chinese Type 022 missile boats)
    12x Updated Sandown class counter mine vessels
    6x SSN
    6x SSK
    4x SSBN
    8x Tide Class
    6x Bay Class
    6x Fort Victoria Class

    In all 74 surface combatants of which 40 are primarily escorts (Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates) and 11 capital surface ships (Carriers, LHD and LPD)

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

  6. 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

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

          • £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.

  7. 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 defense friendly government would never bring the number back to 13. Only thing we can be confident about is 3xT26 and 5xT31, so the floor size of the escort force is now 14.

    • 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 Russian subs proliferate again and become quieter we are going to have to do ASW cheaper and smarter.

  8. 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 saturation defence and controlled by the type 26/31.
    These platforms have the potential to be such a huge force multiplier that we may not need a large number of capital ships in 10-20 years.
    The time that our carriers will need two frigates and two destroyers to provide effective escort is numbered to only then next decade or so, I believe anyway.

    • 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 after themselves in some quite hostile environments and having adaptable roles due to their mission bas,, a prowess they won’t get much chance to demonstrate when shackled to CBG escort duty.

      • 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.

  9. 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 year was revised (up) and this means the Uk has underspent on defence by about £4bn (£48bn as opposed to £52bn). I have no idea what we spend either 48 or 52bn on but it is officially defence (hard to believe).

    We also seem to be spending circa £8bn pa on capital equipment (again published this week) and this is far too low by my estimates. It really needs to be £12-15bn pa.

    Interesting and depressing all at once.

    • 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.

  10. 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 of hollow battalions and useless 1st UK Div brigades – which appear to exist solely to keep cap badges going.

    Likewise the proposed Strike Brigades – which as planned will be a muddle of tracked and wheeled vehicles, no artillery of ADAW.

    3rd UK Div – gets 2 x proper Armoured Brigades – something along a mix of US/French model where the Brigade is designed as the principal element with a full spectrum of support for independent operations, with a Cavalry Regiment (Ajax) and Four Combined Arms Regiments/Battlegroups (2 x Armour Squadrons, 2 x Armoured Infantry Companies, plus Battlegroup support, 120mm mortars, LRATGW, AD, Recce). plus 32 x AS90 (4 x 8). These are earmarked for CENTAG only – with nothing east of the Rhine (yes I did say Rhine)

    We have 1 x “Strike Brigade” – which comprises 16th Air Assault Group, the Special Forces Group and 3rd Commando Group – all of which get the manpower and specialist equipment they need to be our “go to” intervention Force both within and without NATO areas

    1st UK Div gets 3 x proper Infantry Brigades (1 x Jackal Regiment and 4 x Motor Battalions, 1 x Light Artillery Regiment) for the Home defence/National resilience role and long-term peace keeping.

    The RAF gets some more Tranche 3 Typhoons to save wasting money on keeping Tranche 1 in service, and we up the numbers and delivery rate of the F35B, plus additional support in Logistics, Helicopters, etc.

    Scrap the Foreign Aid budget and spend the money on British jobs in the UK – both Defence AND Health & Social Care – on the understanding military and NHS assets will then be available in cases of natural disasters (epidemics don’t stop at national borders – so in it’s our own interest).

    Just a thought?

    • 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 mobility of the wheeled elements. Artillery is just Light Gun unless they order wheeled SP guns as they have promised.

  11. 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 navy than it used to be but still potent and doing it’s bit amongst the other NATO countries especially with it’s two superb multi-role carriers.

    • 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.

  12. 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..

  13. 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.

  14. 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..

  15. 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?

  16. 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

    • 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…

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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..

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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 them. Spanish, Dutch and British companies have all answered the Requests For Proposals (RFP’s) within the time-frame. Spain is offering their F-100 Christopher Columbus Class, the Dutch with their De Zeven Provincien Class and the Lockheed-Martin (LM)/British Aerospace Electric (BAE) consortium offering their Type 26 Frigate. The Italian/French consortium RFP was disqualified as they had not submitted official proposals within the time limit. Canada expects to make a decision on the winning bid by the Spring of 2018.
    All companies (including Germany which is not part of the CSC bid) have Multi-Purpose Frigates either in service, under construction or planned that can “do the job”. The German Type 126/MKS 180 Saxony Class is particularly interesting, with it’s strengthened hull for Arctic Operations, but there is only one design for Canada that offers a balanced “plug & play” approach, and that design is, without question, the LM/BAE consortium Type 26 Frigate. This ship exceeds Canada’s high-level requirements, will be deployable worldwide for extended periods and would be more than capable of replacing our Anti-Air, Anti-Surface and Anti-Submarine capabilities with one single Class of ship. The Australian Navy has the BAE Type 26 frigate on their short list to replace their aging frigates as well. No other ship design compares to meet Canadian Naval requirements, including the Italian/French FREMM Class, the German Type 126/MKS 180 Frigate, the Spanish F-100 Christopher Columbus Class or the Dutch De Zeven Provincien Class.
    The LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship that is simply the best fit for Canada’s future work-horse Navy. It is a modern new warship with all the capabilities Canada require’s in a CSC. The Type 26 is infinitely adaptable, can easily be re-configured and the RCN can “tweak” the design to cater its own development requirements, which is where, the Type 26 has the potential to excel. A re-configurable mission bay can accept containerized loads to allow the rapid re-loading of the vessel. Such loads might include aid/rescue packages, underwater vehicles, boats or Naval Drones.
    The Type 26 Frigate is 149.9 meters (492 ft) in length and has a maximum beam of 20.8 meters (69 ft) with a displacement of 7,000+ tons. A CODELOG (Combined Diesel Electric or Gas Turbine-MT 30) configuration is deployed in the ship, giving it a top speed in excess of 29+ knots with 4 x 20V 4000 M53 Diesel Generators. It has a MK 41 VLS system that can accommodate Surface, Air and Land Attack Missiles. It has a 5” 62 caliber Mk. 45 Medium Range Gun along with 2 X 30mm, 2 X CIWS & 2 X Mini-Gun Systems and can be fitted with future Canadian torpedo’s and counter-measure’s. It will accommodate Canadian Hull Mounted & Towed Array Sonar systems that are vital to long-range submarine detection. Its large Flight Deck can easily handle the CH 148 Cyclone helicopter in it’s hanger, with the ability to land Heavy Lift Chinook Helicopters. It’s hanger facilities are also large enough to accommodate Maritime UAV’s along with a flexible Mission Bay.
    It can undertake a wide range of roles from high intensity conflicts including Anti-Submarine/Anti-Surface Warfare and Area Air Defence, along with the ability to aid in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HA/DR) operations. The Type 26 is flexible, versatile and highly survivable with an extremely low acoustic signature. It exceeds all Canadian Naval requirements, and will accommodate Canada-specific modular design sub-systems with open systems architecture. These same features will minimize ownership costs and facilitate Canadian industry playing a major role in through-life support and upgrades, delivering long term economic benefits to Canada. Its low acoustic signature, crucial to evading detection from submarines, will translate into safety and survivability of the crew, and the ability of the ship to successfully complete its missions. Accommodations are included for 208 crew, with a core complement of 118 sailors.
    A major part of the ship design will be the new Lockheed-Martin state-of-the-art LM CCM 330 Combat System (CS), that will meet all of Canada’s Naval C4ISR requirements. It may only have one draw-back. Ice capability in our North. If it had a more strengthened hull however, that would certainly go a long way to meet the strategic needs for a truely “Blue” Three Ocean Canadian Navy. It also works well within our own time-frame as BAE has already started construction of their Type 26 Frigate in July of 2017, about three years ahead of Canada’s future Naval Frigate requirements.
    The LM/BAE Type 26 Canadian Surface Combatant is simply the right solution for Canada’s Future Naval Fleet and at a final cost of between 60/70B CAD, they are still well worth the investment and of course will be built here in Canada.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here