HMS Cardiff, the second of eight Type 26 Frigates, is currently starting to look ship-shape in Glasgow.
BAE Systems tweeted “in the shadow of HMS Glasgow, a peek at HMS Cardiff forward block taking shape – building in all our experience from first in class with each successive ship”.
In the shadow of HMS Glasgow, a peek at HMS Cardiff forward block taking shape – building in all our experience from first in class with each successive ship for @RoyalNavy #HistoryMakers #26on26 pic.twitter.com/d9cB4Lbo1N
— BAE Systems Maritime (@BAES_Maritime) May 26, 2022
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:
“The Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship, combining the expertise of the British shipbuilding industry with the excellence of the Royal Navy. These ships will be a force to be reckoned with, there to protect our powerful new carriers and helping keep British interests safe across the world.”
Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will likely be negotiated in the coming months. Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels for example.
In 2019, we reported that the hull of HMS Cardiff had entered construction. The frigate is being built at the BAE Systems shipyard in Govan, Glasgow and is the second to enter production as part of the £3.7 billion contract, announced by the MoD in 2017.
BAE Systems said at the time:
“It was a pleasure to welcome representatives of the City of Cardiff to our ceremony. The contract for the first batch of three Type 26 ships provides a solid platform to sustain our industrial skill base & ensures the Royal Navy have the ships it needs to protect UK interests.”
Recently, I captured some imagery of the first in class Type 26 Frigate, HMS Glasgow. The collection of videos and photographs available below show the current state of HMS Glasgow.
You can read more about the status of HMS Glasgow by clicking here.
This is excellent news, perhaps we can speed up this class to save cost and run straight into T46… there is no doubt in my mind these ships are artificially expensive due to the slow build rate, for the QEC class this approach added at least £1bn to the cost, I wonder how much it is adding to T26? with a few minor tweaks (swap gun with T31’s 57mm) and add Sampson radar we could probably create a single multi role class of 14 for carrier duties and with the money saved have 14 T31/32. as both classes use far… Read more »
Isn’t T-46 gone, instead a class of T-83’s will replace the Darings.
Probably, I just said T46 as it’s an aaw version of T26
i believe the T83 is an infeasible 12000 tonne destroyer that we can’t afford.
for what it’s worth I think the RN are doing a great job, a tweak here and there and the get maximum value and firepower for the different platforms. Bofors mk 40 on rivers, mk8 on the T31’s and 57mm on the T26 seems a better blend for the distribution of the main guns.
Funny, I disagree with all of that. T-83 isn’t even past it’s concept stage, so who knows what shape it will take, but if the MM can afford 10,000t destroyers right now, no reason the RN can’t in 15-20 years time. 40mm on the Rivers, please no. Mk8 should go on the ship class that’ll be prioritised for combat zones (City class), not the class that’ll back fill quieter stations (Inspiration class), especially since Kingfisher will be pointless on the T-31, but potentially have a use on the City’s. 57mm should go T-31, as the entire ship focuses on it’s… Read more »
Fair points, but I am in the t45 replacement should be t26 mk2 group And not sure why a fleet escort needs a 127mm gun, when a ship in the littorals probably can. so for me T26 has TLAM and will never be close to shore whilst T31 shouldn’t be an escort in the true sense and is likely to operate closure to shore, it is also generally Under armed so the 127mm would address that. I am also a big fan of more multi role ships rather than single classes of ship. i guess we have different views n… Read more »
I’m not. I think letting design skills atrophy is a terrible idea, as evidenced by the difficulty the USN has had bringing in a new ship after generations of AB’s (and eventually had to get the Italians to make a ship for them). That is not a skill the UK should ever loose, and trying to shoehorn a AAW role into what will by then be a 20+ year old hull is definitely not worth loosing it over. I already pointed out that the 5inch gun has Kingfisher, which has use on a City class, but not on an Inspiration.… Read more »
Do you know if Kingfisher is something MoD/RN have confirmed an interest in or is it just a BAES concept ? It seems to me to be of great potential given the vid we saw on the other thread, I think courtesy of GHF.
Great potential, they’d be fools not to be interested in my opinion, but whether they have or not is beyond my sight.
I have no idea if the RN are bought in or not either DM. All I’ve seen so far is its a BAES self funded development. But if it delivers what it promises, then it would make a lot of sense for layered ASW ops by T26 and T83.
Yep!
Interesting comments, thanks you two.
Of course the Americans got the Italians to provide a platform for…
Should we have been less hidebound in our macro management it would have been their cousins providing the platform for a true commonwealth platform across almost the 5 eyes nations.
Opportunity lost by mis-management by Govt and inflated cost to our own programme.
Type 26 is specialised as an ASW ship turning it into an AAW or even AAW/ASW one is not simple or cheap. You could end up spending as much on adapting an existing design as going for a purpose designed one. That’s why Type 83 will almost certainly be a new design.
Hi David, You said it the T26 is a ASW ship, so why the hell is she going to escort a carrier group? A carrier and her group makes lots of noise, a ASW frigate is quiet. Much of the cost for a dedicated ASW frigate is to make them quiet and difficult for an enemy sub to detect. When you have a carrier, RFA ships and their escorts stomping around all the investment into the silance of a T26 is for nothing. What the carriers need is a cheap escort frigate with ASW capability. Strangly enough if the T31… Read more »
ASW escorts are a vital part of the RN’s carrier group. That’s partly why the UK is investing so much money into it: to make sure the carrier group gets the best. The thing is, the ASW and AAW ships won’t be glued to the carrier’s side at all times. They’ll be detached to sanitise waters further afield, support the carrier’s own ASW/AEW assets or work with SSNs and other assets. They’ll mostly work at distance, with occasional trips to the carrier’s side for replenishment, press photos, or other purposes. I can imagine we’ll see T31 with the group at… Read more »
Didn’t the RN also used to operate, as part of that wider ship dispersal, with a “Goalkeeper” Frigate escort that would stick like glue to the carrier?
Yes, that has happened. I believe HNLMS Evertsen effectively took on the role during CSG21.
As I noted, T31 would be perfect on the plane guard role, but it’s also worth noting that it would be a good asset for the goalkeeper role, largely due to the gun choice (the 40mm/57mm combo can put up quite a wall, and if they use 3P ammo…!).
I always thought a National yacht on the T31 hull would make a Fleet tender in wartime and for training.
Ron, don’t assume that the regular photo opportunities you see of all the escorts and carriers sailing in close formation is how it would be in a hot war in open ocean. The AAW destroyers may be up to 10 nm from the carrier, while the ASW frigates may be out as far as 25 nm from the carrier. There might even be picket ships even further out. Why the ASW assets are so far out becomes clear when you consider that heavy weight torpedoes are routinely estimated to have ranges of ~30 nm, so the ASW frigates want to… Read more »
Hi GHF, if the carrier escorts are so far out what is all the fuss about any carrier based 30/40/57mm potentially shooting up other vessels as you’re suggesting there’s a lot of space between vessels?
Quentin, I can’t speak to the concerns people have with 30/40/57mm on carriers because even if escorts are much closer to the carrier, there will still be plenty of places the escorts won’t be.
Do bear in mind that I said “up to” those distances. If a CSG is operating in more confined waters/pinch points then they may not have that much space.
T-31 with 57/40mm guns and double the SEA Ceptor’s would make excellent goalkeeper for the QE’s let the T-26’s sit 25miles out in front/side with the t-45s sat 5-15 miles out. put light tial on the 31 and she can act as plane guard and also cover the rear quadrant incase you get sub trying to sneak up behnd whilst carrier manouerving during flight ops
Perhaps Steve. Or we might see T32 as a more ASW focused light frigate, say something like the French FTI as part of the escort fleet. With T45/83, T26, T31/32 it probably also makes sense to leverage all those capabilities with CEC, something that hasn’t been worth doing up to now.
All that said, I doubt we’ll be operating a CSG in a crisis without additional escorts from NATO or regional partners, which would add significantly more capable high level escorts to the CSG than T31/32.
I think 26 would also operate within air cover provided by carriers. When LM pull their finger out ! On everything else agreed.
Hi Dave with the Hull concept of the 26s wouldn’t it be able too vary the task at hand such as when the Leanders showing my age here were built they were able too undertake all 3 threats Sub Surface, Surface,Air One Ship One task rather than having a half arsed Hull trying too do all 3 tasks ?
Hi mate, one of the reasons the RN went from your One ship One task arrangement to more of a multi purpose design, was that they couldn’t guarantee having the right escort in the right place so to speak.
We didn’t have enough (sound familiar?), and with a declining global role, it was far to manpower intensive/ expensive a way to proceed. Hence where we now are.
I know exactly what you’re talking about so showing my age as well. The first problem would be stability range. We know next to nothing about Type 83 but it will certainly need a very large radar mounted as far above sea level as possible. That much topweight will have a huge impact on hull size and shape. Trying to square that with an already existing hull would be a real head scratcher for the designers. You’d easily get to the point of limiting the size and height of the radar in order for it too be safely accommodated by… Read more »
More off topic but how about using the basic T31 hull and machinery as the basis for the National Yacht! That way we help cover the overall overheads of the T31 and T32. Great looking hull and could be even be used to open another yard in UK to Frigate construction.
I suspect very big vulnerable platforms will not be a priority after Moskva – T83 probably smaller, with associated unmanned surface platforms forming a flotilla with distributed capability for each T45 replacement. I.e. a partially crewed command vessel and 3-4 autonomous uncrewed weapons and sensor platforms operating as a swarm. Harder to kill with a single strike.
Doubt it. This reads very much like the “tank is dead” or the Jeune École, they keep coming up and keep being shown wrong because while you can threaten a big platform, nothing else can do it’s job. It’s the same reason the infantry soldier is still a thing, even though they’re vunlerable to everything down to a thrown brick: Nothing can do their job besides them.
And basing it off the loss of the Moskva, a single incident where nobody has any sort of concrete information on what happened isn’t great either IMO.
There is a debate going on about whether a platform-centric approach is fit-for-purpose. Watch this space for the outcome, but it’s a real concern which the war in Ukraine has further illuminated. Weapons may not need to be delivered by bespoke platforms, but be better deployed from a variety of distributed and multi-domain modalities. Merchant ships could protect themselves for example, and not need escorts.
Yes, it’s been going on since at least the 1870’s, as I pointed out.
And again, yes lots of debate has been started by Ukraine, it’s all silly because it’s all based on incomplete data that’s mostly propaganda from both sides.
I don’t think dismissing this debate is very sensible. The ‘Horse and Tank’ moment was real. What is clear is that as platforms become more exquisite we can have fewer of them, that is how defence has evolved over the past 100 years. Do we really want to put all our eggs in a few very expensive baskets, or find distributed – and thus more survivable – means of deploying the precision guided weapons that actually do the damage? Right now we build a few expensive platforms and can’t afford the weapons to fit them out. Isn’t one lesson from… Read more »
It’s not a horse and the tank moment (Aside the fact that the obscelesence of the Horse IMO is overstated, it continued to have a role well into the 1940’s in the recce screen for all but the most mechanised armies). I do not think there are any lessons that can be taken from Ukraine at the moment, one way or the other. There is no real analysis of what is happening on the ground, just images and numbers for popular consumption. But you’re again taking the wrong end of the stick: Looking at vulnerabilities not capabilities. Brimstone from the… Read more »
A delivery maybe van is more survivable than a MBT because it can kill it from far outside the engagement range of the tank and does not stick out like a sore thumb when spotted by ISTAR drones. As for the role of the MBT, to maneouvre to exploit weaknesses in the enemy defences and plunge deep into their rear. I see no evidence of that being effective against a determined defence with excellent ISTAR and armed with plenty of distributed infantry PGMs and drones. On the modern mostly urban or peri-urban battlefield exploitation maybe better effected by distributed infiltration… Read more »
No, that’s one role of the MBT, but the MBT is a direct fire support vehicle that provides immediate heavy caliber fire on targets, which is a role that nothing else can replace at the moment. And sorry, but your feeling on what “may” be the case doesn’t matter, because it only “might” be the case, there is no data to back it up. Plus, nothing you’ve mentioned can actually replace the role of the thank. Maybe when a UGV can carry a 120mm… but then it’ll just be a tank with the crew offloaded. A delivery van is not… Read more »
Lots of things can provide direct fire, however you are clearly very wedded to the past and not open to creative destruction so the best I can say is watch this space and we will see which future prevails 🙂
tbh tonnage isn’t what adds to the cost we saw that with the T31’s with the larger heavier hull winning. Larger hull affords space therefore flexibility in the design, you reduce the need for bespoke kit to fit a cramped space, more space to use automation thus reduce manpower and enhances maintainability as more space means components are easier to get to. The only real downside of the larger hull is pushing it through the water. On the 57mm swap this was mentioned in a Navy look out article thats worth a read,
I’ve read the Navy Lookout Article, but cheers anyway. I’m aware of the “Steel is cheap, air is free principle” my point was more that if the Italian Navy can afford to operate 2, we can operate 6.
I agree up arming the rivers is the last change of gun armament on the list, they are constabulary vessels and no drug runner is out gunning a 30mm so little point unless your removing the 30mm from service complete. For the rivers some form of retractable or temp hanger for a rotor if it’s on task would be good. Having a rotor for a lot of deployments should be standard as it’s the ultimate tool for constabulary work. I do think we should be looking at the 40mm on our major warships, it would be a great standard to… Read more »
I think long term the 30mm should be removed and replaced by the Bofors 40mm, but I don’t think it should ever be replaced on the Rivers, instead when the B3’s or whatever replaces them comes into service put the 40mm on because by then, in theory, the 30mm should mostly be out of service or going (Although again, that particular gun has been in service since the 1950s (or 30’s if you don’t count the autoloader) so we’ve had plenty of time)
Yes agree, it’s as you say the rivers should be the last in line as removal would only be about taking the 30mm out of service and not a needed upgrade, so agree all in all likelihood it would be an end of service life of the rivers end of the 30mm type process.
30mm in service since the 50ts ?
BAe/Bofors 40mm L70.
I Was going too say ,20mm Gambo and 30mm Gcms were made available to the Fleet after Corprate replaced the 40/60s and 20mm 7alphas only reason higher rate of fire
The next AAW ship is likely to need a vast increase in power generation , both for Radar and directed energy weapons, Therefore it will naturally be bigger, desigend around future technologies, and if they are serving out towards the 2060s they need to contain the future technologies, rather than rush in and try and squeeze too much on to a 7000 tonne Hull.
Type 26 has sold the Australian Hobart class will need replacing at a not too dissimilar time as the Type 45.
That seems an opportunity to look at a UK -Aus- others AAW dsstroyer
12000 tn more in line with a Cruisers , T83 nearly twice the weight of the old DLGs and Type 82
If the Treasury asks they are Destroyers though 😉😉
Hi David , it’s been done ,before , through deck Cruisers ( Invincible class)
I know but what about the Japanese Navies ‘Aircraft Carriers’ sorry multi purpose Destroyers ! The only reassuring thing about our Politicians and Civil servants is that everyone else has the same problems or worse.
Displacement has nothing to do with whether something is a cruiser, there are plenty of Cruisers from the 1870’s-1920’s that fall in the 2-4,000t displacement range.
And messing about on the river
The topic has come up alot on here for a T26 based design to replace T45 and its not feasible.
The hull design is completely wrong to have such a high up and heavy mast for all the radars required.
And yet Canada and Australia are doing it.
T26 is wider than T45 I believe so it shouldn’t be too much of an issue
The Type 45 has a 2% Beam advantage over the Type 26.In previous (many) discussions on here about using the T26 for a new AAW version the limiting factor is it’s D-L (Displacement – Length) ratio.Canada and Australia have gone down different routes in redesigning their respective versions of the T26,the Hunter class in particular has encountered major issues in regards to the fitment of the CEAFAR Radar and keeping within weight limits.The main advantage of using a fresh design for the next class of AAW Ship is it helps preserve our Naval Architecture and designing skills.
Canada and Australia are doing what exactly, building an ASW frigate with limited anti air capability just like the UK?
Hi James, I think the Canadian and Australian T26 will be the equal or better than T45. ceafar and spy6 are among nest the best radars n the world, what exactly is limited about them please. T45 is great, but let’s not kid ourselves here, it is the same capability as several other European nations navies and is essentially an under armed FREMM. iver huitfeldt is IBM certified already and has a higher load out. ASW s a capability that can be added and removed. Frigate is a historical reference point that means nothing. the original designation of T26 was… Read more »
The entire point of the T26 is a specialised ASW vessel and that is exactly what we are getting. We are also arming them with AA capability but they will be nowhere near as capable as the current T45’s. ASW capability as in a basic sonar or towed sonar array can be added in and removed, specific construction of a ship to be quiet or house a very specific sonar system no cannot be added or removed. Whenever the T45 replacement is ready Sampson as it stands will not be fitted to that, it will be a much much better… Read more »
Dern, true the T46 is gone; and yet. How to make a T45 into a T46 without to many issues. Powerplant, one/two RR MT30s with four/two diesel generators an up powered T26 configuration. Radar suite, SAMPSON three plane and SMART-L EWC. Weapons replace the 4.5in with a 57mm gun, keep the 48 SYLVER A-50s- possibly 32 A-50s and 16 A-70s plus the 24 Sea Ceptors, replace the 30mm postions with 40mm, replace the CIWS with a combined Phalanx 20mm and Sea RAM, relocate the 30mm to midships sponsons and add LMM/StarStreak and finaly remove the boat bays and replace with… Read more »
That’s quite a list of “wants” Ron. As they say in cricket, “you’ve knocked out of the park” !! I won’t add to it to spoil it!! Lol 😂
And where do you get the manpower to operate and service all these desirable weapons? In WW2 some of the most effective units were the convey escorts which were small easy to make but hard worked and effective. 100% agree present units need more bangs but not to that extent. Nice dreams but will never ever be. T42’s were effective in both AAW and ASW and could ship kill too. We need more GP units that can share in all aspects of naval warfare as often will be on their own or undertaking real escort role as in conveys etc… Read more »
Manpower – as with much of the gov. procurement the attracting, recruitment and retention of sailors needs to be improved. Whilst it does seem to be a problem, with some better decision making, it’s one we could solve.
GP abilty – agreed. Every new ship we make MUST have at least the ability to defend itself in all 3 domains (air, surface, sub-surface) & then we can look at specialising them in being excellent (i.e. able to project power, defend other assets etc.) in one or more.
The new ships need less people than the types they are replacing so it should be fine however I do think we need to increase the size of the navy to improve working conditions
Sorry Ron, to me this sounds a bit too much like fantasy fleets.
I pretty much suspect the T83 will be a T26s with upgraded AAW area defence capability. After all a T83 is likely to be a due role platform ( otherwise it would be a T46). So it’s going to need noise reduction build into the hull and a T26 has that. It’s then just a matter of mounting the sensors ( which could be lower that the T45, as that’s what would drag up stability issues and most AAW destroyers don’t mount radars as high as a T45) and fiddling with the weapons fit. It would be nice to think… Read more »
I suspect not. The Type 26 hull will be at least 15 years old at that point, we’d be sacrificing our design skills to create a mule, rather than making a ship that is designed to our purposes (just look at the difficulties the Auzzies are running into).
Hulls aren’t mass produced the way tanks are, and the cost of designing a new one hopefully wouldn’t be too much more than frankensteining an old one.
I would like a new hull as in general a lot of navy’s are built up and beyond the 10,000 ton mark and I think everything in the 2030s future is going to need space to be a drone mothership so space will be a bigger asset in the future ( it’s why I think the RN has got the mission bay concept for all its future escorts dead on). My big concern is that we don’t have a track record of HMG starting the programmes in a timely way or the MOD/treasury messing around and ending up making it… Read more »
But then you open yourself too “Well we won’t need the Type 83’s because we have 3 AAW focused Type 26’s.”
Yep….let’s be honest is going to either a compromise ship or less hulls than we need and if the government really plays to its strength it will a compromise ship and less hulls….. so 3 AAW focus type 26s replacing the Type 45s may a potential outcome ( I do hope not, but now I think about it…yikes)
Think your right Jonathan the T83 will just be a upgrade of theT26 .My dream of the T83 was to have a Displacement of around 13-15 tons with a good Helicopter deck and called them cruisers .like back in the 70s early 80s with Tiger class .But I like dreaming 💭
I would of been great to hear what the ideal build rate would be to achieve the cheapest price and what that price and how many hulls that would be.
I suspect a lot of the costs are most likely the systems etc.
There was a rumour that the 13 hulls could of been built for current price if the orders had come earlier and build rate not slowed down. But it’s a rumour I think
The main cost is in people, the yards employ a minimum amount of people to do the required tasks and clearly these workers are not working optimally.
I do think the quality of the ships and workforce satisfaction would improve if they were operating at a faster tempo. It must be soul destroying working at half pace all the time..
Exactly, main cost is on man-power, and continuous order (which is vital) on regard of ship building (of course, in addition we need to procure equipment, which is not cheap). This means adding 9th T26, and speed up the build to meet the delivery schedule of the 8th hull, will be relatively cheap, because mostly added is equipment cost. cutting one T26, and make the build speed even slower will give small amount of money back, because man-power cost only decreases a little, and equipment cost is not so high PS For example, as such, I prefer adding 2 T26,… Read more »
Who would work at half the pace? Bae should have a fully resourced project plan for the vessels. Welders fitters etc should be kept fully occupied with time set aside for obvious things like HSE training, upskilling etc to keep your work force skills current. If that’s not the case it got naff all to do with the governments build rate but BAe and probably the unions.
One reason for the slow build-rate is to ensure there is continuous work for the yards. Otherwise you’re either faced with shipyards laying workers off resulting in skill loss, or the MoD ordering ships the RN is asking for just to keep the workers busy (cf the original River OPVs).
“the MoD ordering ships the RN is asking for just to keep the workers busy”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. If it comes out cheaper to do that than slow down the build of expensive warships, why not get the extra ships? And why not order a ship you really want in the bargain, like a Fleet Solid Support ship?
I imagine if in year savings hadn’t had to be made and the River B2’s didn’t have to be ordered that would be true.
But the design wasn’t ready and in year savings are sadly a reality of every government department under the treasury.
Not quite, but it’s close. It depends on what you count as current price. Think Defence has a page on the history of the Type 26. In it it ascribes a quote to Admiral Burton in 2015, reported in Defence News September 2015 (I can’t find that original source). “Burton put a price tag of £12 billion on what is currently a 13 frigate program aimed at replacing the Royal Navy’s aging Type 23 anti-submarine/general purpose fleet starting 2023 when HMS Argyll is retired. The figure is not the exact cost for the program but was meant to give the… Read more »
Adding Sampson radar is not a minor tweek.
Something about metacentric weight…..
And extra energy…
But how many jets will it have?
I should of got shares in scaffolding being the job started. Or bought it all up in Glasgow and sold it back a a profit.
Great to see the hulls are really coming along. The long bit must be fixtures and fittings and getting systems up and running.
Will batch 2 vessels differ in size when there come along ?
Definitely, even HMS Prince of Wales, and HMS Queen Elizabeth are different sizes from each other…
Whether they’ll significantly differ in size is a different question of course…
👍
That’s interesting, do you have any idea how different QE and POW are in size or displacement?
It’s minimal, I think it’s about 2 foot in extra length, and a few hundred extra tonnes displacement that came from the commando modifications.
That’s interesting, do you have any idea how different QE and POW are in size or displacement?
PoW is reportedly slightly longer than QE.
The displacement is something that will vary, given their loadout and equipment fit. PoW has a slightly different fit (including the Bedford array), which will likely add some weight.
During her construction, it was previously reported that PoW was significantly heavier, but in reality, it meant that she was heavier at that point of her construction due to FOC lessons speeding up her build.
Will they get the welds correct on this one?
From what I have heard…. Annoyingly, there are better options for joining bits of steel together already in use for shipbuilding in other parts of the world – Friction Stir welding. Also annoyingly, BAE already have the tech in use for aircraft. More annoyingly, BAE are actually quite heavily invested in the tech and have robots that you can programme for the size & shape (complex shapes too) required & then let run to complete the job quicker, cheaper and better than a human. Could potentially save millions… MORE annoyingly, when shown the tech, the ship and sub builders from… Read more »
Are we going to have the same welding issues with Cardiff. Plaese can someone tell me when convention changed. As far as I am aware it is HMS Cardiff when she has been commisioned into the fleet as a fully opertional ship of war. Or has something changed?
It’s funny how quickly perspectives change. Going into this year I thought our Navy was seriously under spec / under hulled to counter Russia. Now it looks less the case. Admittedly only one Russia ship has been sunk outside port and we don’t know what really happened or why their defences failed, but after their failed land and air war, I can’t help joining the dots.
On the flip side, a massive RN during the Falklands faired worse than the Russian navy has to date. If it wasn’t for the harriers that would have looked even worse.
I’m inclined to disagree with your lack of concern. The Black Sea fleet operated with impunity for months lobbing cruise missiles all over Ukraine and supporting the ground offensive with NGFS. How effective/influential they’ve been is certainly up for debate but Ukraine have had to keep at least 1 mech-inf brigade in Odessa for fear of amphib operations (made hypothetically possible by Navy). Ukraine has no Navy to speak of & the Black Sea is a as far from blue water as you can imagine. I’m a little wary of using this war as a ‘lesson’ as to how Naval… Read more »
Agreed, that was my point about not knowing how the ship was sunk. It’s odd it took that long to do it and that only one ship has been sunk. You have to assume that Ukraine has been regularly firing off missiles at the blockade. In regards to the future Russian force, it’s hard to know. Their gear is all from the Soviet era upgraded. They have very little fresh stuff and don’t appear to be able to afford to make in numbers. The loses are going to be hard to recover. Same with lost troops, morale will be terrible… Read more »
To add to that, look at how well the UK is doing to replace it’s cold war era heavy gear, it’s been 30 odd years of trying and still not done. Or look at recruitment, where the armed forces can’t fill roles even though the total keeps getting cut.
Also consider all the guided missiles used, they won’t be quick or easy to replace.
The Russian navy won’t be involved in a war without their ground forces and their ground forces and air will take decades to rebuild, and so I am less worried about the Russian navy.
One quick one before I start – I’m not a warmonger itching for a fight (doubt you are either, just putting it out there for anyone else reading) but Russia are not the only worry. You make some good points – depending on the damage to their economy & sanctions preventing important kit (microchips) being available, this could be the end of Russia as a threat for decades. Not sure it’s true but heard Ukraine built the diesels for their new frigates… if true, I can’t imagine they’ll be selling many more to them in the future. Fresh stuff –… Read more »
To be honest the Russian ship building programmes make the U.K. look like some kind of turbocharged wartime build programme. Since the Cold War they have managed a handful of 4000ton frigates and a couple of SSNs. It does not look like they have the shipyards or skills to make larger combatants and even there new building programmes are all dusted of Soviet projects with pedigrees going back 50-60 years….it would be like the RN launching new Type 12Is with more modern missiles and sensors.
I think the Type 26 is a waste of opportunity. Delivery too late – 10 years later. The Navy will always need ships, everyone will agree. Royal Navy ships are like delicate works of art crafted by carefully selected craftsmen. This can give aesthetic satisfaction and pride of having a great ship, but it is not the result of satisfying the ease of use of the Royal Navy and the convenience of maintenance and repair of the government. As in the case of the Type 31, the system must be improved for the purpose of designing and using clever vessels.… Read more »
Bit off the subject guys good to see old pictures of HMS Vanguard with the Queen and other royals on board with a heavy cruiser ,and Destroy as Escort last night on the news 👑
Question for any engineer types – NATO standardised on 5.56mm for rifles, 120mm for tanks, 155mm arty. Idea being that it simplifies supply & a French tank can rearm with German ammo etc. (There are outliers obviously such as C2 using rifled gun). Even aircraft are generally cross compatible with a lot of missiles, LGB etc. being deployable across multiple platforms. So – why do we have Sylver and Mk41/57? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have it standardised across NATO so that a Dutch ship could reload with UK missiles if needed? I know there will a software update… Read more »
Politics,support for ones own Industry,the preservation of essential skills and shear bloody mindedness tend to get in the way of standardisation for a lot of Military Equipment.
And also the risk of stagnation.
Obviously, changing equipment all the time just to be up to date isn’t a good idea, but standardisation does carry with it people saying you shouldn’t change because it would break the standard. If that happens enough you then end up behind.
Cheers Stu for that your reason for Cross compatability with NATO forces going back to the late 70ts early 80ts there was a programme about that very same question the programme even showed the inability of just using fire hoses and connections between NATO Navies alongside in port was almost impossible as each hoese connection was a different size with different locking seems nothing has changed
Interesting. Cheers for the info.
Yay! Based on the current build rate, it will be ready in 2030. Fergusisation appears to be contagious in Scotland.
Found design concept of Type 32 frigate. Thoughts?
Just hope that , that Outboard has a Prop guard fitted if so then spot on let’s get building Mark
That gun is expensive, it’ll be fitted for but not with.
Same goes for the propulsion. Will be using oars initially to save money.
Definitely when in service a shoe box with a cut off broom handle poking out painted black will be fitted to meet budget.
Good idea, no need too sponge out the barrel
Where’s Australia’s frigates? Nothing has been happening for months, if not years!
A word of warning, we pull out of naval projects where we’re being stuffed around
Ask the French what happened to their sub contract.