Acoustic performance, hiding sound, is a critical factor in anti-submarine operations. The Type 26 Frigate takes this to a new level.
Earlier this year, during a visit to BAE Systems’ shipyard in Glasgow, Sir Simon Lister, Managing Director of the company’s Naval Ships division, provided insights to journalists on the engineering efforts behind ensuring that the Type 26 operates with a minimal acoustic signature.
Silence in naval warfare is both a technical challenge and a tactical advantage. Lister described how even the flow of fluid through pipes can impact the ship’s stealth capabilities. By isolating pipes with rubber and designing brackets to reduce noise transmission, the ship becomes less detectable by enemy submarines, ensuring its sonar systems remain unobstructed.
This level of attention to detail extends beyond propulsion systems to all areas of the ship, including firefighting mechanisms and waste management infrastructure.
Keen readers will have noticed large black panels on the side of the vessel and its sisters. Those panels are part of an effort to reduce the noise generated by the vessel, making it harder for enemy submarines to detect.
The visit also offered a firsthand look at the progress of HMS Cardiff and her sister ships under construction. The ability to visualise and design the ship in detail provides significant advantages in the shipbuilding process. Advanced tools, such as the visualisation suite at the Glasgow yard, allow engineers and manufacturers to work in an integrated manner, considering the interdependencies of various systems and components.
This technology enables them to determine the best way to install components without relying solely on flat, 2D plans or physical inspections.
The level of detail captured within the visualisation suite demonstrates the capabilities of digital twin technology in modern shipbuilding. The suite can simulate every aspect of the ship’s design, down to the smallest valve, highlighting how these advanced tools are influencing naval engineering and design processes.
Another important aspect of the visit was the emphasis on protecting intellectual property (IP) and sensitive information. The visualisation suite operates in a controlled and restricted environment, ensuring that collaboration among authorised personnel is secure and that access to detailed design components is tightly managed.
This secure environment is essential for maintaining the integrity of the design process and safeguarding the technological innovations that give the Type 26 Frigate and similar projects their competitive edge. Additionally, the secure sharing of information and updates between teams in the UK, Canada, and Australia supports innovation within a trusted network, enabling collaboration without compromising security.
T26 will be as quiet as T45 is noisy.
Let us hope T31 will not rattle and hum like a cross-channel ferry.
T45 has, I am told, got a lot quieter as various bits have been replaced over time.
Changing over to the new DGU’s will make a huge difference too.
Well perhaps then they will at least be able to hear the Yu-6 as it homes in.
Reasonably certain that T-26 will be viewed in retrospect as the absolute surface combatant bargain of this century in terms of capability v. cost. Unfortunately, Uncle Sugar (USN) does not have a very keen grasp of the obvious. Hopefully, Consternation Class (pun intended) does not turn into another LCS debacle, but not reassured by events to date. 🤞🤞 Believe the best surface fleet acquisition the RN could implement would be a Batch 3 T-26 order. Build enough T-26s, buy a few more P-8As, increase the order for SSN-A, and the RN becomes the dominant ASW service w/in NATO. Very significant… Read more »
Ummm…guess that would require RAF cooperation for the P-8As. 🙄
Bargain?! if it is commissioned in 2027 T26 has taken 10 years from build to commission.
It has only 2 things going for it on paper: ASW and land attack while Constellation will be a multi propose ship with AAW/ABM -ASuW and ASW capability. The Constellation hangar is much more adequate for example.
How would you feel if Constellation would take 10 years for the same?
Since it was laid down in 2024 so commission in 2034?
The connies are at least 3 years behind schedule. They are not even going to be 15% compatible with the FREMM. The original idea was to be 85%! They have turned into another LCS debacle. AAW? T26 has AAW missiles. Artisan is more than good enough for its job as are the vessels Link capabilities. ASuW its getting Tomahawk/ NSM/ Anglo French anti-ship /Land attack missile. How pray tell is the connie hangar more adequate? How is the flight deck (not chinook capable) and Helo services more adequate? The T26 will have a greater magazine depth for Helo launched weapons… Read more »
Our estimation of the future course of this program apparently largely coincides. Does not help matters that apparently every man-jack associated w/ the program is entitled to massage the spec. Hope to be proven wrong, but am quite concerned that this will eventually devolve into another LCS style debacle. USN would suffer a loss of respect by both friends and foes. Respect of allies can be recovered; loss of respect by near peer/peer foes could prove catastrophic in current/future threat environment. 🤔😳😱☹️
I’m not comparing FFG-62 to Type 26, the requirements are very different and don’t compare well. As concerns the shifting specs, I’ll be overjoyed if some of the delay in the Constellation class is caused by adding BMD to the combat system (Aegis Baseline 10) spec, which is entirely possible. Congress didn’t help by mandating Tomahawk capability, which wasn’t part of the original spec. The Tomahawk capability add was a congressional requirement (by former congresswoman Elaine Luria), not a USN add, I directly questioned an FMM rep about it at the Sea Air Space conference. That said, even with the… Read more »
Sure as hell hope your interpretation of the spec development is largely accurate. 🤞 USN needs and deserves a win after LCS.
For gods sake how it could have been 85% “compatible” with mandated US stuff in all of it
Yep. Statute law in the US mandates specific US content for various equipment.
Another issue was the US using imperial and FREMM being Metric. All the drawings need conversion to imperial. Then all the materials need acquiring in imperial. Some are a straight swap over. 1/2 inch plate = 12.5mm. Thats the easy bit.
Pipes and valves are a whole different ball game with US specs not being the same as European specs or measurements.
NAVSEA excelled themselves on this one
As i have said often, Type 26 is a waste of ship. The RN version. The Canadian and Australian ones are ok.
For its mission it could have been smaller and cheaper.
A rotating radar from start of the century when everyone is already in 360º fixed ones, some even already have dual band. Mere 25km range anti aircraft missiles which means will hit no aircraft at all because they will fire loads of missiles outside its range . A legacy CIWS with too short range. etc etc.
Sensors and weapon systems evolve/are replaced over the course of time.
The missile is a lot longer legged than that and has some other interesting attributes to go with it. Artisan is a software driven radar. It is very very good. 360 is not the be all and end all. Rotating and fixed both have pros and cons. Cooling for the RAN fixed radar is a mare. I worked on RAN ships with just the first version fitted. Topweight badly affecting stability. Huge cooling issues and the cost. It was around 10m AUS D a single plate and that was before the long range air search part of CEFAR was fitted.… Read more »
What makes Canadian T26 better than UK T26 – other than the radar? Less Surface to air missiles, less land attack missiles, less anti ship missiles, worse sonar.
Oh, and Aussie variant is obviously superior, but also hugely more expensive and larger.
At this point, would be grateful and relieved if Constellation Class were on a 10 yr. path of development. USN announced a three year delay before program start. And the Consternation Class is not even the biggest alligator in the swamp! The truly concerning ‘gator is the SSN/SSBN enterprise, both in terms of construction and maintenance schedules.
Remain convinced USAF can/will single handedly vanquish all foes, but would be more comforted if USN was along for the ride. 🤔😳
I work with a lot of people who are in NAVSEA. The ones working LCS are breathing easy because the Connie’s are taking the heat off them… Which is a pretty telling situation… LCS project people getting a break because another ship project is proving to be even worse!
I could never understand the LCS concept. If you want to work close in to the shore/islands, you don’t go high speed in a frigate sized ship as you are likely to run aground. Two different Pacific Island nations in recent years managed to ground new 40m patrol boats (top speed 20 knots), on reefs they knew about! If you are in amongst islands, why an AA 57mm? Why do nations like Thailand & Philippines fit 76mm to their OPV’s? The Italian ASW FREMM is generally considered to be in the upper echelon of ASW frigates (along with T23 &… Read more »
Arrgghh!!! 😱😱☹️☹️
Path of development for next RN frigate after Type 23 was almost 30 years. But the contract for the so called Global Combat Ship was done in 2010. So you have already 14 years. Probably 18-20 years until being operational.
Not build to commission, it had to be designed first. And a non-ASW specialist like Consternation class is more of a target than a threat than for modern submarines. Better to have other ships that can do Air warfare and ABM Consternation class will be redesigned a few times before the design is finished, unfortunately some will be have been built by then…
“Consternation Class”
Hahaha. This is brilliant tbh. I’m not sure if you came up with it but I expect it will be borrowed by quite a few going forward.
Believe it to be an original appellation. Frustration sometimes yields originality.😁👍
I agree it is a potent ship for, in warship terms, not a lot of money.
I agree we need more but first we need crews and the silence over the Norwegian order doesn’t fill me with masses of hope….I think I can write the script for this. I don’t even want to write it as it is so depressing.
Counsel patience, the Norwegians appear to be careful, cautious customers. Probably explains why they have a $1+T sovereign wealth fund, while most other nations are awash in seas of red ink. Norsemen traditions, though now refined, die hard. 🤔😉
T31 has no noise reduction. They don’t even have sonar to detect subs anyway.
Who was taking about T31?
The article is about T26 and the thread veered off to T45
Stephanie mentioned T31 in the first comment, that’s what Frank was replying to and if you look, you’ll see.
Hi SB, Stephanie mentions them in the first post here. Hence…
Define noise reduction. Are the Diesels bolted directly onto the stiffeners in the engine rooms? No they are on their own shock vibration mounts and will be encapsulated. Most if not all RN mechanical kit gets mounted on shock vibration mounts. Whilst not as good as rafting it does reduce noise. Noise is also a function of machinery running states. T31 running machinery states will determine how quiet it is. For example, T23 is quiet but depending on its machinery running state it can go from regular quiet to ultra quiet. In ultra quiet during exercises they have put on… Read more »
You mention towed sonar as a POD fit.
Is that confirmed?
You don’t see many stern angle pics of T31 so I don’t know whether the stern mission space is open to the rear.
If so would reverse the main problem with the design at present, the complete inability to provide basic ASW cover as an escort for a LRG or similar.
The IH frigate (the parent design), meets NATO minimum specs for ASW work. Its parent has recently been reclassified by Denmark as an ASW frigate with the addition of a towed array (both parent designs have hull mounted sonars as standard). The IH frigate has the ability to operate a towed array built in. If Babcock is to be believed, A140 can do everything that the IH frigate can (or can be put back). What was specifically changed from A140 to T31 (other than the obvious) is hard to tell. But the bones were there to begin with.
That all matters very little if there isn’t a hole in the stern or one cannot be cut.
T31 won’t be as noisy as people make out but it will never be a leading ASW ship.
ASW…T22 and T42 did ASW. One was a lead ASW the other wasn’t T23 tail does ASW…T23 GP does ASW. Anyone can do ASW. I did ASW Commander during an exercise on Bulwark with no sonar at all and no weapon systems! ASW is a team sport we even invited the RAF to play! There is a difference between Passive and Active ASW that people miss. Passive yes noise can be an issue but with Active LF not as much as it was with a pure passive tail ( S2031) Active sets yes noise is again an issue but again… Read more »
Thanks for the detailed explanation 👍
Your “ASW commander” thing sounds interesting. Were you just coordinating vectors and things from the sonar equipped ships or were you receiving direct data?
The problem with T31 is that at present it is entirely unable to contribute to ASW beyond offering its helicopter based on other vessels’ sonar.
What would be nice is a truly multirole escort that has a modicum of capability in AAW and ASW.
You get the link picture and allocate assets such as FF, dippers , ponies and if ones around, fixed air assets. You tell the people where to go depending on what they themselves detect. You don’t need to see the detection data you just need the location data over link to come up on your displays. Getting the link picture to stay up and to be synchronised between everyone in the network is the fun bit. If the sync is lost then the datum point for all the ships to use as point zero can move and the info the… Read more »
So you were tech support on the datalink 😜
Sounds fun, like a wargame but you happen to be on a warship at the time.
Yes, probably quiet for at least another 4-6 years.
Naughty.