The Type 26 ‘City class’ Frigate will be a powerful and flexible frigate with a wide array of cutting edge sensors and weapons, but what will those weapons be?
The City class will be equipped with the Type 997 Artisan 3D search radar and Sea Ceptor air-defence missiles launched via a 48 cell vertical launching system positioned.
The Sea Ceptor silo’s will be positioned on the bow and at the funnel of the vessel.
An additional 24-cell Mark 41 “strike-length VLS” is positioned forward of the bridge capable of firing missiles such as the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, a future anti-ship missile, or even more quad packed Sea Ceptor missiles although this is incredibly unlikely.
Recently, Harriett Baldwin and her French counterpart signed an agreement to explore future long range weapons for the British and French Navies and Air Forces.
The missile however will not be ready to replace Harpoon until 2030, leaving the Type 26 Frigates without any real means to engage surface warships aside from their helicopters.
Like the Type 23 frigate it will replace, the Type 26 will have an acoustically quiet hull for anti-submarine warfare and will be fitted with a Thales Underwater Systems Type 2050 bow sonar and a powerful Sonar 2087 towed array.
The frigate will also be fitted with guns of various calibres. Instead of the RN’s current 4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun, the frigate will be equipped with a NATO-standard BAE 5 inch, 62-calibre Mark 45 naval gun.
Smaller guns include two Phalanx CIWS, two 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Guns and a number of miniguns and general-purpose machine guns.
Depends on the extent of “fitted for but not with”.
so true
if war breaks out we will have a navy for about a week
Fit to Receive…I loved that.
Question- “So what optional extras do you get with a T26 deploying to the Gulf”
Answer – ” Well actually its all optional extras….”
Long delays in getting the builds underway forcing us to pay over the odds for the River Batch 2s to fulfill TOBA obligations and a slow build rate possibly meaning a temporary drop in escort numbers and probably adding to the overall program cost are all frustrating aspects of the program but, judged solely on the specs for the ships to be finally delivered, this looks like it could be a world-class frigate.
It’s going to be interesting to see the VLS configuration for the Australian and Canadian bids. I suspect all-Mk41 at the front but maybe not space for an extra 24 where the forward Sea Ceptor VLS is on the UK version. Perhaps an extra 12 or 16 Mk41 in place of those forward Sea Ceptor for a total of 36 or 40 Mk41 but maybe there is space for 48. It will be interesting to see.
With the size and advanced capability these ships will offer I am surprised that they are designated frigates.
They have the displacement of second world war light cruisers.
The Type 26 will be superior additions to the fleet, that much is obvious.
This whole anti ship missiles business is a complete joke and once again highlights the complete incompetence of our politicians. They think because we got away with the aircraft carrier/carrier jet gap, that they can do this as well, but no missiles is the same as sending in the army armed only with pistols. If we get into a war, ever man and woman aboard every royal navy war ship is DEAD. Even a third world nation would be able to sink the entire fleet. If world war three happens and this comes to pass, I’ll be campaigning for the death sentence for every politican and civil servent involved in the decision making process for the premeditated murder of of 10,000 saliors and treason. That’s if we aren’t already dead from nuclear war or such.
We will be dead, the politicians and senior civil servants will be holed up in a plushly furnished bunker somewhere, drinking fine wines and consuming luxury food prepared by their personal chefs. LOL, it is a sick world.
Oh dear, what an angry little chap you are, Steven.
You aren’t Russian are you ?!
If we are all dead from from a Russian or North Korean nuclear bomb anti-ship missiles won’t be that concerning ?
It doesn’t even need to be WW3. Any conflict that brings with it ship to ship combat will see every saliors on Royal Navy Warships at the bottom fo the sea. Afterwords the politicans will play the blame game, hold a review that exonerates them of all responsibility and then say ‘lessons learned’.
They will probably be too busy welcoming our new overlords to show them around the Parliament they will be begging them to keep if only to show the plebs that nothing has really changed.
yeah labour said they wouldn’t even use a nuclear weapon in defence
ASMs are not defensive so how is not having a Harpoon replacement going to kill anyone?
Stealth design, Soft kill and Hard kill are what protect ships.
ASMs allow you to reach out and touch people at a distance and as such have them keep their distance from you. Harpoon is a 60 mile slow flight missile and needs over the horizon targeting to be effective. Other “enemy” ASM systems may be of longer range but still suffer from the issues that all ASMs have.
These are-
1. You need to know where your target is to begin with.
Its a big ass ocean and if you know what you are doing its quite easy to hide from radar detection.
2. Targets move so you need to predict (Guess) where the target is going be at the terminal homing phase of a missiles flight.
3. You need a wide enough search basket on the seeker head to find the target.To narrow and you will not see the target.
4. If a missile uses radar to seek a target it is detectable, jammable and susceptible to decoying.
5. If its IR homing or a Home on Jam missile it is still susceptible to countermeasures, stealth design of the target and hard kill.
6. A fast missile has a short time of flight and by its nature a narrow search basket. If you get out of the search basket the missile may not see you or will have difficulty turning to home on a target.
7. A slow missile has a long time of flight and the target may have moved out of the seeker search basket when it gets to the target area. However slower missiles tend to be more maneuverable.
8. ASM defense is mostly a game of trigonometry. If you know what the threat is you can have countermeasures in place to reduce the ASMs effectiveness.
ASMs can be shot down. I have been on vessels that have shot a 4.5 inch shell down with a 1970s tech missile system . That same vessel also shot down an exocet missile in 1984.
The updated VLS Sea Wolf could and did do exactly the same thing. No doubt Sea Ceptor will be as good as or better than Sea Wolf.
Personally I was always more concerned with Subs than missiles.
This is priceless. A quick dummies guide to ASM. Thanks Gunbuster, I for one really appreciate your time in writing the above and it helped me put a few pieces together.
What is your view on Chemring’s Centurion trainable decoy (and some other stuff) launcher? A few commentators that I have read have really hoped it would find its way on to T26 (and it might yet, some renders have seemed to show it on occasion but that means nothing). Chemring’s blurb says the trainable bit is a big deal because it can cut down on the need for ship maneuvers to put the decoy in the optimum place. Would this be a major uplift in soft-kill capability if fitted or more a bit of over-hyped gold plating?
You’re not wrong Julian, there has been some great posts by Gunbuster, this is another.
Having read that I think it’s further proof that ship on ship warfare is more or less dead. The biggest threat to a ship are submarines and aircraft.
A decoy launcher that can train is nothing new. The old Corvus 3″ launcher trained and could shoot off rockets in all directions. However If it trains it can break down. A fixed launcher is simple, easy to maintain and has little to go wrong with it.
When putting chaff up you have a number of factors to consider.
Missile course and speed and its type of search/homing pattern
Ships course.
Wind Speed and direction relative to the ship.
RCS of the vessel (you need to put the least radar attractive profile towards the missile)
Firing arcs for Hard kill.
You fire long range chaff ( Distraction) to confuse the missile before it locks you up. This helps to drag it off course wasting speed and range and may put you (the ship) outside of the homing head look angles whilst you maneuver to present a low RCS and open up Hard Kill weapon arcs. You also need to factor in the prevailing wind for the next type of chaff.
You then sow seduction to pull the missile lock off you and your low RCS profile onto a tempting big radar reflecting chaff cloud that is a lot closer in. However this is where the wind is important. The seduction chaff cloud needs to be moving away from you relativel to your course and speed as you steam away. There is no point making a nice big attractive chaff target to have it blow back onto your own ship!
You can also use floating decoys for this.
Floating decoys work very well. They have been used for targets for Exocet shoots before now (when back in the day the RN had some) . The 3 missiles we launched saw and homed onto it with no issues.
You also have off board jammers that can jam homing heads forcing the missile to switch to home on jam. When it does this it will go for the jammer which is floating in the air away from the ship on a parachute or rocket motor. and miss the ship.
Thanks again for a really interesting and comprehensive answer.
Good answer, showing the difficultiers of fighting at sea.
But surely having something like this on the ships — a straight off the shelf purchase — would be better to have, than not have in battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
I agree, the msin ship.killer is the sub. The arm.chair theorists have little idea about modern Naval warfare. Any surface threat agsinst the RN would be neutralised by an SSN. No Navy (US would struggle)n the World can deal with an Astute…see what Conqueror did in 82…
What is this guy Lewis smoking? We do have submarines! When was the last time a British ship was attacked by another ship?
Probably the last time we engaged with a peer nation? We currently have 7 SSNs what are the chances of one of them being in the right place at the right time to protect your shipping by attacking your opponents ship that has plenty of ship killers on it? Not all UK warships currently carry jammers, will the type 26 all have them? most probably not just fitted for but not with. Over the horizon targeting isn’t a insurmountable problem as most maritime nations except the UK have MPAs and peer nations have satellites with near real time capability also ships carry helicopters for OTH. The Russians are alleged to have a ASM with a data link that can talk to other missiles as well as satellites and other platforms to update target info
Utterly agree Lewis, the decision to not replace Harpoon is tantamount to criminal incompetence and premeditated murder. The same politicians that are making these decisions are signing defence commitments to deploy the QE carriers to the South China Sea, operate East of Suez.
This decision could spell utter defeat of the Royal Navy in any future conflict against a competent enemy with a mediocre capability.
2030s when Perseus missile is supposed to be getting ready by MBDA is over 13 years away. That is not an inconsiderable period of time. Why is it not palatable to order in the NSM for about £400 million to equip or surface fleet until Perseus arrives? (no doubt late, billions over budget and not as capable as other options) Someone needs to start drawing up a list of who needs to be arrested should the unthinkable happen. So on the list is Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Fallon, May, spreadsheet Phill, Blair, Brown, now Harriet Baldwin, All responsible for SDSRs in 2010+2015 and subsequent piss poor defence cuts that were utter disasters.
Don’t leave out the foreign aid lobbyists
If an enemy with a “mediocre capability” possesses a threat that we do not, what does that say about our capability ? The next person that sings “Rule Britannia” in my vicinity may well get a punch on the nose for being so far removed from reality.
I agree, the msin ship.killer is the sub. The arm.chair theorists have little idea about modern Naval warfare. Any surface threat agsinst the RN would be neutralised by an SSN. No Navy (US would struggle)n the World can deal with an Astute…see what Conqueror did in 82…
criminal incompetence and premeditated murder.
What absolute nonsense…really…?
Although nice to have, the RN has mitigated the risk… the RN cannot spare escorts to get involved with a ssm brawl…the SSN will do the job. Failig that carrier aviation…honestly what country in the Workd thst we are likely to go up against can counter an SSN plus aviation…
Only arm chair experts would make such ill informed, idiotic, assannine, remarks…
incompetnce? we’re the worlds leading authority on that one, that’s why the u.s coastguard has more ships than we do
But we do it with so much more panache than the yanks……..
Pomposity not panache.
The US Coastguard has a few cutters and inshore patrol boats.
Not entirely sure that these vessels could replace Albion, Ambush let alone the QEC.
But Steven is right,his own posts are pompous and over the top ! Neat trick…
Wow I can only imagine the level of explosive vehemence if our destroyers showed an incapability to spot tankers and the like before they actually crash into them.
Like your subs?
Settle down chaps. By the time the first Type 26 is ready we can have LRASM or Tomahawk AS. Since we will be buying more TLAM anyway we will probably buy some anti ship versions as well. Or we might buy LRASM if the US replace TLAM with that. What enemy outwith Russia or China can threaten us with dozens of aircraft with multiple anti ship missiles anyway? the argies only had FIVE Exocet! A single escort could handle that now (Type 45 or 23/26). Think about the threat level before shouting about murder.
This reminds me of the Falklands when a lot of brave men died be our ships weren’t equipped with an air defence system that could cope with WW2 boming tactics. I blame the admirals who were obviously obsessed with hull numbers over equipment they carried.Imagine if we had come across the Russianation navy. !
Most of the vessels where close to shore or stationary in San Carlos when hit. The Falklands was not a blue water open ocean fight.
Sea Dart was ok for long range engagements. Sea Cat was on its last legs by then but Sea Wolf coped OK and would have shot down the aircraft attacking Coventry if Coventry had not sailed across the T22s bow and broke the lock Sea Wolf had on the incoming aircraft. However there where only 2 T22s available and we where goalkeeping the carriers most of the time.
The Post Falklands lessons learnt was a step change for the RN and it changed and shaped the way we did things in tactics , damage control and equipment and made us much better for it.
The incidents on Southampton and Nottingham would have ended in disaster and a large loss of life had the post Falklands lessons not been applied to Damage Control, training and equipment improvements.
Lets hope we don’t ever have to see anti submarine frigates protecting anti aircraft vessels from air attack any time soon.
While it is true that the ball has been dropped on the anti-ship missiles, there are many positives about the way the RN is evolving. The Americans are buying LRASM as a stop-gap until something better (like Perseus) can be readied. We can do he same.
The Australian Government started receiving submissions for sea 5000 future frigates including BAE GCS/Type 26. The evolved F-5000 from the spanish F100 looks strong. 48 cell VLS and new calls from government to upgrade to SM3 and SM6 capability. It’s looking like Australia’s fleet will be potentially a large destroyer fleet if you read between the lines.
I’m sorry, but how do you plan to properly equip our ships while at the same time introduce more cut backs? Cutting defence spending and endlessly cancelling projects on cost grounds is what has led to shortcomings in our capability in the first place.
Or you could tell people on welfare that the feeding trough has a limit. Eliminate all foreign aid. Impose tariffs on companies shipping jobs overseas. Jail anyone dodging the tax.
Government exists only to 1.Provide for the Common Defense 2. Provide Domestic Tranquility (Law and Order) 3. Promote the General Welfare.
Note the order in which these are placed. You cannot pay off your dedt and reduce tax and spending. As someone on the right or center would want. If your dead or occupied and speaking Russian,Chinese,Farsi, or Arabic whatever language your conquerer imposes. Nor can you engage in whatever leftist ideological spending spree you desire.
Whether your on the left or the right your first responsibility is Defense of the Nation. Therefore this belief you can cut the Armed Forces to prosperity is both ludicrous and the antithesis of the Nation State. For it’s primary reason for being is protection of it’s citizens.
This pawning off of this most primary of responsibilities to America ? Why on God’s green Earth would America come to the aid of a country that imperils itself? With irresponsible neglect of it’s own security and safety. Why should the mothers of Tennessee weep? Why should widows in Pennsylvania and Texas mourn? All so cheapskates got a bigger check across the sea.
Never be reliant on someone else for your safety.
It’s all about money with America isn’t it, so you don’t think a country should come to a countries aid unless it spends on defence?
A bit like looking the other way when a kid is getting bullied because he’s not fighting back.
Only an American would think like that.
We’re British pal, we have a thing called honour. That’s why we risked and lost an empire to fight tyranny, where as you joined in to gain one.
It was TH who made it about money. I was pointing out the irrationality of expecting someone else to pick up the tab both in spending and lives. When you start to show yourself unwilling to defend yourself or your interest.
Why should the Congress of the United States be asked to tell their constituents, that their taxes are going to be raised? That their sons and daughters are going once more overseas to fight and die? Why should the Governors of the 50 states be forced call up their Guards to duty?
All because allies on the far side of the world decided that dangerous cuts to the defense budget could be made. After all in the sad event threats were miscalculated well” Uncle Sam will make it all right won’t he?”
You speak of honor. Honor is linked inextricably to duty.
America’s first and last duty like any other nation is to Her citizens. There is no honor in fighting for those who won’t fight for themselves. Especially when instead of gratitude you hear only contempt.
No Elliott, TH said “let the US police the world” even if every country in NATO decided to spend 5% of GDP on defence, do you think USA would cut defence spending? Stop getting involved overseas? Would it b***s.
“There is no honour in fighting for those who won’t fight for themselves”
What a deplorable comment.
Elliot, if Sweden and Norway tomorrow decided to cut its defence budgets to next to nothing and put that money into health, cancer research, new antibiotics etc, and a few years down the line they were invaded and attacked by an agressor, if Britain did nothing to help I would be ashamed.
Are women and children not worth fighting for? Jews in WW2? Defenceless villagers? What about small nations that have no real defence that are on your doorstep in the Caribbean
I don’t think this view is shared by Americans in general, I have family in the states who would also find your comments stupid.
We don’t need you’re help in Europe, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland, combined with the rest of European allies could quite easily defend Europe against any threat. The only reason American politicians are asking for more is for American interest only, nothing else. Do you honestly believe it’s so America can bring its troops home. It’s for American geopolitical aims regarding Russia and more importantly China.
You’re just one of the blind ignorant masses of Americans that still believe your soldiers are sent around the world for “freedom and democracy”
Kieran C
“We don’t need you’re help in Europe, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland, combined with the rest of European allies could quite easily defend Europe against any threat.”
LMFAO Like hell you can.
The US spends the most out of NATO and the US is NATO. We’re the ones that contribute most of the hardware and money. We’re the only ones in Europe that can step up to the plate in defense. It sure as hell ain’t the Europeans. Certainly not the United Kingdom. The US is the only country that can properly defend Europe from Russia.
“The US is the only country that can properly defend Europe from Russia”
Russia would make some initial progress but ultimately would get smashed.
Russia’s GDP is about 1/7th the GDP of Germany, UK and France alone, about 1/12th the entire GDP of NATO countries in Europe. Italy and Spain each have a higher GDP than Russia. Turkey is mostly in Asia but is technically a partly European neighbor of Russia and has a significant number of tanks that threaten Russia’s southern borders and oil fields. The European nations have a large population advantage over the Russians as well maybe 3–4 to 1.
The Russians do have a huge numerical superiority advantage in tanks. I think the quality vs quantity question might come into play. The air war is the biggest question. The Russians have roughly the same number of aircraft as the European members of NATO. Not all of the Russian planes are Su-35’s though and the rafale and euro fighters that make up the bulk of European combat aircraft are likely superior to the Su-35. For as long as I have been alive Russian aircraft stated performance has always been on par with western aircraft stated performance but in virtually every encounter between the two the western aircraft come out on top. The Russians complete control of the media precludes us from hearing about all the reliability issues and problems Russians have with their equipment.
In the history of warfare I do not think a nation with smaller population and 1/12th the economic might has ever prevailed in a war vs the bigger wealthier opponent. Particularly when the smaller population has a history of inferior equipment. I think UK and German tanks would be able to deliver incredibly devastating results against Russian armor. T-90’s vs Challengers and Leopards almost surely goes to the west. Just like aircraft on paper the Russian tanks are every bit as good as western tanks but this never works out in reality.
Ultimately though likely very bloody the Russians eventually lose the air war (particularly as they’re almost surely going to be the aggressor which is expensive logistically) and once the air war is decided the tank advantage will likely be offset by the difficulty of moving armor against air superiority.
Thanks to the answer from Brian Baker from quora.com
Not even 250 challenger 2s in service. Germany leopards in service 328 by 2021 roughly 260 in 2015 report. France 200 leclerc service.
Wow a Grand Armee Napoleon would be proud. You’re lines would be spread so thin they would merely go around you and defeat you in detail. That sound you hear is the sound of men dying fuel, food, or ammunition in the snow. The Germans and the French should be intimately familiar with sound.
Air power have even read the studies from the War College about what happens to air forces that fly in that many concentrated air defenses? Or did you even consider do the European powers even have enough aircraft or parts for them to sustain an air campaign?
In answer to your question there is a significant difference between CAN’T or WON’T defend themselves. In that scenario with Sweden and Norway under those circumstances screw’em. They would have chosen their fate.
On concentration camps and women and children. No comparison they could not defend themselves therefore must be protected so long as they don’t threaten your own.
The United States may not have always had motives as pure as driven snow. But certainly more altruistic to the U.K.s which before WWII cutoff Jewish immigration directly increasing the number of deaths in those camps you mentioned. Then not to be outdone kept refugees in detention camps to keep the from going to the Mandate.
And two examples of countries vastly outnumbered and outgunned and much poorer winning the 13 Colonies and Israel both of which don’t have Russia’s advantage of a disposable population.
Elliott – As I have said before I admire the USA and its people for many reasons. I have lived, worked and holidayed there and done a ‘bit’. So before you launch into yet another personal broadside please read very carefully what I am saying:
You have just eloquently shown why Americans have a very negative reputation outside of the USA. Your superior and self righteous attitude is neither justified or correct let alone appropriate. And certainly not when it comes to the defence of Europe. For example you scoffed childishly at European Challengers, Leopards and Leclercs one of which holds the record for longest kill shot and zero defeat in battle while the USA owes the UK entirely for the armour, Germany for the gun and sighting systems for your overweight and fuel guzzling Abrams. Tanks that had to stop in Iraq in open desert waiting for the fuel trucks because they use the wrong engines. Please do not lecture the UK or Germany on desert warfare, the UK and France on jungle warfare or all three in European terrain land warfare. Its our back yard! And your numbers are incorrect. You forgot the Challengers the UK has in ‘warm store’ ready for just such a surge requirement
Whether you like it or not you are the strangers here not us. We owe you nothing and you have no rights here. It is our Continent and while we have internal rows like defence spending by Germany compared to the UK we, in total, can defend ourselves well enough. Two countries in Europe have independent nuclear capability which makes any idea of nuclear attack in Europe unthinkable by an enemy – Presumably Russia as I am sure even China cannot invade Europe from the other side of the world. As the USA found out in Vietnam.
Sometimes history can teach us lessons. The UK and its Commonwealth stood alone for 3 years in WWII before any US forces showed up for Operation Torch. We did whatever it took financially and militarily and simple sacrifice to maintain our freedom, liberate North Africa and enable the liberation of Europe. Do not make the mistake of thinking British resolve is any different 77 years later. Or think that because the EU and the UK are having a bit of a tiff over something here we would not in an instant be there to defend whoever needed help. We (the UK) are in the Baltic Sea area, in Baltic and Eastern Europe air defence right now and delivered a major armoured capability to Eastern Europe recently.
And one final point if I may? Might is not always Right. You may indeed be the biggest but repeatedly you show you aren’t actually the best. Not for nothing have generations of Squaddies, Bootnecks, Matelots and Crabs agreed that you Yanks ‘have all the gear but no idea’. And while waving big guns about looks great on Fox News or in a Hollywood film mostly it is cunning and being crafty bastards that are far more effective. In that I am afraid Americans really do not have a clue while we are born being crafty bastards. When you are a small island race you have to be able to punch above your weight. We have done that for centuries and will continue so to do for many decades to come.
So in conclusion, Sir, wind your insulting and superior neck in and maybe show some respect?
Very well said Chris.
My numbers of active vehicles are correct. I do not count vehicles in storage. They take time to bring back to service no matter how “warm” the storage. Also how many trained tankers are available? How long to train more?
On the Abrams I highly doubt you have ever served in one or served along side them. Suffice to say you are misinformed. Yes it uses armor developed from Chobham composites. No we do not use the same it is denser and heavier. Also hence the weight leading to the selection of the turbine engine. Composite armor was already under development here it would have been acquired either way.
The U.S -Vietnam example you quoted was the height of ignorance. Almost as much as saying th U.K. and the Commonwealth fought the Nazis alone for 3yrs. During that time period a small list of other combatants the Polish, the French, Yugoslavia, Greece, and let’s not forget the USSR (highest number of dead). To top that off the US handing out lend lease supplies like candy. Providing armed escorts for those supplies to the halfway point despite official neutrality.
“All the gear but no idea.” “Americans I’m afraid don’t really have a clue about being crafty”. No I do not believe you admire America or her people at all.
At every opportunity you profess admiration while following it up with criticism and accusations that we are stupid, weak, uncaring, and leave the poor to die.
Your not speaking German is owed to Americans and Russians. Your not being part of the Soviet Union is thanks to American troops and taxpayers.
How do you get America to join a war??
Tell them it’s nearly finished!
Haha it’s an old one but still a classic.
Elliott – Your superiority complex is so ingrained you cannot even see that as soon as you wrote those immortal words:
“Your not speaking German is owed to Americans and Russians”
You actually confirmed the entirety of my last post.
I am not sure what the Americans were doing for us in 1940 (or indeed in 1941) other than sell us anything paid for FOB cash. I do exclude the volunteer US airmen who made up the three RAF Eagle Squadrons of course.
As for the Russians saving us again I am not sure what they did for us in 1940 or most of 1941 given they were German Allies. Not even neutral! And when they were invaded (unlike the UK which was never invaded) it wasn’t the USA that went to their aid in 1941 it was us the UK. We shipped 3,000 Hurricane fighters, 3,400 tanks, thousands of tons of materiel and machine tools. And we did that through the Arctic Convoys. A continual feat of seamanship still honoured every year by the Russian people. And we continued that all through ’42 to ’45 and guess what? We did it free of charge simply because they needed our help. Unlike some other country we know.
So in summary given we never saw any Americans until North Africa in November 1942 and it was us aiding the Russians how can you possibly make any of your self righteous claims?
As for ‘the US handing out lend lease supplies like candy” you again show your inward looking mentality. Lend / Lease only really kicked in in 1942. By the end of the war it constituted some 17% of our WWII Budget. And overnight in 1945 it was converted into a 50 year loan. Some candy that Old Son! And don’t even get me started on how the USA used the ‘convertibility’ clauses in that loan to mount the biggest foreign currency raid ever seen in 1947 that doubled our $ debt.
We were of course never repaid the $6.8 Bn in Reverse Lend lease charges owed by the USA. Everyone else paid us.
And finally you may want to consider how many US lives were saved by us having over a million forces and thousands of aircraft with fleets of ships fighting the Japanese in the longest jungle war of WWII. Yes us. the people who inflicted the biggest Japanese defeats at Kohima and Imphal. We kept about 2 million Japanese forces entertained in jungles rather than them sitting in foxholes picking off brave young US Marines on beaches.
War is a filthy thing Pal. I doubt you have actually been in one but it doesn’t matter. Your attitude typifies the utter lies peddled by the US media and played out in Hollywood history lessons. You will probably be telling us next it was you Yanks who found the first German Naval Enigma machine and Bletchley Park was in downtown Washington …..
And finally because I take issue with you and your attitude do NOT project that into any disrespect for the USA by me. My opening remarks stand. Its just cretins like you I find difficult to respect.
The 13 Colonies is a wasted argument, in those days Britain was more concerned about France than what was considered a worthless Colony 000s of miles away…
To be honest what are we going to do, none on the new generation of heavy weight ASMs are ready, our harpoons are now at the end of their lives. So do we spend what little money we have on a legacy system that we have historically never ever used once, or save our cash for something better ( you can be assured if we renew harpoon we will be living with it for the next 20 years, when everyone else has somthing better). It’s worth remembering the RN Does not go about hurling heavy weight ASMs at other ships for a one simple reason, you need to know what you are shooting at which means you need to be close, and ASMs at present are as dumb as you like, can’t find things close to shore and may accidentally sinking a cruise ship which will pretty much loose you any war other than WW3 ( which is what harpoon was designed to fight). So something small, smart and shorter range is what is needed for a navy that spends most of its time fighting close to some else’s shore ( which is all the RN has done in my lifetime).
I do feel sorry for the UK public in that so much time and money has been expended on the Daring destroyers, these “frigates” and potentially the Type 31 frigates. Had the requirement been foreseen, an off the shelf design modified to UK requirements to fill AAW and ASW could have been constructed in UK yards, This would achieve economies of scale across the build allowing for greater unit numbers and savings in terms of common weapons systems, GT, radars etc.
Ryan the issue is you can’t really have have a hull that does both AAW and ASW very well ( even if you fit it out differently) the requirements are so different. The burkes are the best example out there of a hull that does both, but even the burkes have been optomised towards one task, AAW and are therefore not as effective ASW platforms as something top end and dedicated like the type23. Simply put the RN likes its ASW and AAW platforms pretty much totally focused on there primary role, and as they are just about the only navy in the world never to have lost a major war who are we to tell them differently.
I have worked with and on multi role vessels that another navy uses. All the reasons above where given and they bought into it. (MEKOs)
They have told me that they will not be making the same mistake again and their new builds will be dedicated to AAW and ASW.
As for savings in commonality there is little that is common. Nav radar , hull mounted sonar and misc equipment perhaps but the big ticket expensive stuff such as Radars , Missiles, engines etc are to specialist for each vessel.
Hello TH. Can I point out that cutting and pasting the same negative comment over and over is wearing a bit thin. Can’t you vary it a bit?
Lot of Russian commentators here. How about doing some checking on the origins of commentators??
Russianation – jeesh.
I see the scum from the defence industry’s PR agencies are typing their usual bilge that anyone who is concerned about this debacle is Russian. Flogging is too good for them.
Governments spend money into existence, the debt is irrelevant. It is simply an artefact of the fact that money is debt, the more money there is the more debt there is.
…and why is the Mk41 limited to Tomahawk and “quad-packed Sea Ceptor”? Why not ASROC, LRASM, SM6? This frigate would be a World-beater if configured maximally.
$$$
I’d prefer to see the front silo all Mk41, as I suspect the versions being put forward for the Australian and Canadian bids will be, and quad-pack some Mk41 with Sea Ceptor as required because even if they could only fit an extra 12 Mk41 in place of the forward Sea Ceptor silos that would still give an appreciably bigger total load-out (48 forward Sea Ceptor instead of existing 24 or need 6 of the extra Mk41 to duplicate the existing 24 forward Sea Ceptors and still leave over an extra 6 Mk41 for ASROC, LRASM, SM6 etc).
Having said that though, I do completely take on board Elliot’s point about money which is why I don’t see it happening. One thing I do hope is done for the RN version though is that the compartment space around the forward Sea Ceptor silo is left intact and big/deep enough to house Mk41 instead (such compartment space has presumably already been designed into the weight and structural calculations due to the CAN and RAN bids) so that if the RN did ever become awash with money it would be a relatively simple (but still costly) upgrade to go that way. A bit like the T45 Mk41-gym-space situation except, instead of the case where T45 currently puts no weapons at all in the Mk41-sized compartment, T26 does fit it with something but not the most potent thing that could be fitted.
If T26 ever did get a batch 2 for an AAW version then an all-Mk41 forward silo at initial build would seem to make sense there since it would want maximum loadout and would also probably want to favour longer range missiles since any T26 in an escort group would already be quite well-equipped with 48 Sea Ceptor each, T31 will almost certainly have some too, if anything ever goes on the carriers it would very probably be Sea Ceptor not Mk41-sized, and an AAW version of T26 with all-Mk41 forward silo would still have 24 dedicated Sea Ceptor itself in the midships silo (radar issues permitting since an AAW version would have a very different radar setup which might well involve an extra volume search radar somewhere as in the T45).