The Type 4X, the Type 45 Destroyer replacement, is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate is officially being considered for the job.
The UK Defence Journal has been speaking to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder. We have been told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that will function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme is currently referred to as as T4X.
For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Scottish politician and was the Member of Parliament for Glasgow North East until the last election. More importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the APPG for Shipbuilding which published the results of inquiry into the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, taking evidence from a range of maritime security stakeholders and industry.
It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.
Sweeney told me after attending the steel cutting ceremony for the future HMS Cardiff:
“It is clear that we now have a unique opportunity to create a truly international naval shipbuilding alliance with Canada and Australia with Type 26 (both countries have purchased the design) – and consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26 as an eventual replacement for Type 45 – known currently as T4X.
The aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.”
I’ve also been told that the 4X project has a nickname, ‘Project Castlemaine’. Pun intended.
What’s happening right now with the Type 26 Frigate build?
Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total with three in the first batch, the contract for the second batch will be negotiated in the coming year.
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.
The last vessel in the class is likely to be in the water by 2035.
When asked about what comes after the Type 26 on the Clyde, Sweeney made mention of the desire to keep building a new vessel based on the Type 26 Frigate.
“Discussions are at a very early concept stage, but the merits of continuous build using T26 as a common family was clear from my conversations with BAE directors and MOD decision makers.”
“They said they were ‘keen to make the numbers work’ on it”, he added.
The Type 45 Destroyers are expected to begin going out of service in the thirties, perfect timing given the last Type 26 Frigate is expected to be launched in 2035.
Is the Type 26 Frigate suitable for hosting the required sensors for anti-air warfare work?
The Type 45 destroyers use the SAMPSON radar with the PAAMS missile system, now referred to as ‘Sea Viper’ in UK service. SAMPSON itself is a multi-function dual-face active electronically scanned array radar produced by BAE Systems on the Isle of Wight but it’s a big, heavy and expensive piece of kit.
SAMPSON provides surveillance, target tracking and missile information and on the Type 45, the radar sits nearly 40 metres (131ft) above sea level at the top of the ship’s distinctive mast.
However, some defence commentators have expressed concerns over whether or not the Type 26 Frigate hull is capable of supporting the system and required mast.
Addressing this, Paul told me that the vessel is capable of being fitted with a radar mast similar to that seen onboard the Type 45 Destroyers, the mast that puts some in mind of the ‘Coneheads’ from TV.
“The Type 26 is of sufficient beam to be fitted with a tall Sampson type MFR radar mast – especially given the latest composite design options – so there is the basis to have a common hull type and family of ships: ASW, GP and AAW.”
What does this approach mean for UK shipbuilding?
In a previous discussion, Paul pointed out that the aspiration for shipbuilding in the UK according to officials, would be to have two main yards for warships. The first being the Clyde with its Type 26 frigates and an eventual replacement for the Type 45 destroyers and the second site, currently somewhat up in the air given no contract has yet been awarded, would focus on building Type 31e Frigate.
“The Ministry of Defence want to get to a position where there is a constant rolling production line of Type 26/Type 45 successor and a second production line of Type 31e – building both lines permanently. As older ships leave service or are sold abroad, new vessels enter service.”
We all remember the proposed ‘Frigate Factory’ for the Clyde, dropped by BAE after the UK Government scaled back and slowed the pace of the Type 26 Frigate build. Could such an approach finally see it built? Well, I once again asked Paul.
“This opportunity would enable the proposed ‘Frigate Factory’ or Modern Dock Hall concept to be realised, which would finally deliver the purpose-built shipyard infrastructure to maximise shipbuild efficiency, which is similar to the level of investment that is being made in Adelaide by Australia and in Halifax by Canada for their respective Type 26 frigate programmes – that will ensure that the Clyde will then be in pole position to win further export orders for third party countries which are not interested in ensuring domestic build (e.g. New Zealand) as the cost significantly reduces over time and reputation of the ship is established.”
Sweeney also discussed the Type 31e, echoing a concern that many commentators have also expressed, that the vessel may ultimately detract from the Type 26 Frigate programme.
“There is also now increasing doubt that Type 31e will ever live up to its expectations on cost, capability and delivery schedule. Perhaps it might be best to emulate what Canada and Australia are doing and focus our efforts on an increased drumbeat of Type 26 production at a purpose built national naval shipbuilding centre of excellence.”
Given the aim being aspired to for two main UK production centres for fighting ships, this would in my view make long term orders from the Government more feasible as hopefully the cost may be reduced through efficiencies that are inherent to a large, single site.
Currently, ships are largely built in Govan and floated down the river to Scotstoun to be fully fitted out.
Such a commitment from the government in the form of more long term orders would perhaps enable BAE Systems to invest in the kind of frigate factory/modern dock hall discussed in previous years with all of this putting the industry on a more secure and sustainable footing.
It’s not a new concept either. Doing work like this would maintain relatively constant production, similar to the Arleigh Burke class in the United States which has now been in build for decades with each batch being superior to the last.
So, what does this all mean?
A Type 45 Destroyer replacement based on the Type 26 would provide a tangible means to meet the aspiration of continuously producing two standard classes of ships for the Royal Navy, allowing for a more sustainable UK shipbuilding industry.
As I’ve said time and time again, the UK needs a better way to effectively sustain its shipbuilding industry, let’s hope we’re heading in that direction.
I’ve long wondered if a stretched T26 hull with MK41 silos would be a useful T45 replacement or in an ideal World provide additional AAW capability to the Fleet.
always an option but given the amount of time it takes the navy and contractors to decide on the actual design, how late were the t26 and t 31 projects because of constant buggering about before the design was accepted and contracts awarded?a stretched t26 would be more like a cruiser.
Yeah let’s hope shipbuilding gets steady constant work for decades. wouldn’t the T4x be Atleast 2000t smaller than the type 45.
And I do think we still need a smaller cheaper frigate like the 31 for gp duties, Let’s hope we get 10 of them.
I think the ‘general purpose’ frigate has its place, as long as there’s commonality of equipment it can be cheap and useful platform. Stick a gun on the front and a vertical launch system with a couple of 30 mils, miniguns&GPMG’s and a paraffin parrot on the back and…. voila. An escort vessel for The Gulf or Guardship duties. I fear though with our budget constraints we tend to the ‘eggs in one basket’ approach, understandable maybe when you weigh things up from the bean counter view but one super dooper ship can’t be everywhere.
all this constant talk of crewless vessels i’m often in wonder why alternatives to building with steel aren’t being produced.early this year the prices of kevlar were below comparable steel prices, now its all gone quiet. maybe a return to wood and sail might work(not(not enough trees! left!!
Well, although quoted as circa 2K tonnes smaller, it is virtually the same length and beam as T45 – and appears at present more ‘massive; an interesting conundrum perhaps, Cam. Either, way, it’s no ‘frigate’ – outside of it’s current ASW designation.
Let us hope the MOD, et al continue with this very sensible build philosophy, particulary in a world becoming observably more unstable.
I love it when a plan (appears to) come together!
Not really. The weight largely comes from what a ship is fitted with and the Type 26 is still very empty in regards to the British version. The Australian version for example exact same length and beam yet will come in at 8,800+ tons with growth margin still left aside. So getting to the same displacement as the Type 45 isn’t an issue what is the issue is getting beyond that (Which is natural as you increase capabilities). While a few meters shorter an insertion of a block section could lengthen the hull (As the Koreans did with a version of the Burke increasing the length to about 175m) what will be the issue however is the beam. Can not easily widen a ship so you have an engineering nightmare that will in effect make it a new class of ship. Narrow beam prevents top weight, Limited top weight means you are more limited in what you fit to the ship either during build or during MLU’s. Will an AA version of the Type 26 be a good buy? Yes. Will it be a suitable replacement for the Type 45? At this stage no. You would run into the issue Australia has with the Hobarts, Great ship initially but they have very limited growth margin (Same with the Anzacs actually as the top is so heavy now they cant be fitted with CIWS Phalanx or the risk of capsize in bad weather is too great). Type 26 will be able to grow upto Type 45 capability, Maybe a little more, But not much beyond that and for a ship you will have for at least 20 years (closer to 30) you want long term certainty that it can be kept relevant or has room to allow that.
If you can scrap the Type 31 build and instead get 5 Type 26 AAW ships then you will be rocking.
The Arrowhead 140 has plenty of potential as a GP frigate, with a beam of over 19.5m it could have 1 RR MT30 + other gens. installed to provide power for future laser warpons.
The Arrowhead will be able to handle much greater warpon load then the present T23s, it looks like it will have a load out of the new I-SSGW missile required. This new surface warpon will become available from 2023.
By procuring more then 5 Arrowhead 140s, this will give the UK the ability to meet worldwide commitments again.
The Arrowhead is not ment as a replacement for a future DDG. That will require a bigger vessel then the present DDG’s.
The beam of a Type 45 is 2% greater than that of the Type 26 – 400mm of a 20.8m bean to be precise.
This could easily be compensated for in the masts design/construction materials or in the very worst a reduction in mast height by 200/300mm.
I think the only area of growth margin to really consider would be the infrastructure requirement for direct energy weapons to replace CIWS.
It will need powering up so a bit of length is essential to slot in extra power plant. Extra length also gives extra stability. All not so difficult with electric drive. T’birds are go!
400 mm? thats a coat of paint!!
the R.N has suffered from enough cuts scrap the t31? no way enough has been spent getting to this stage.
more chance of that than a a 30 ship fleet which should be a target.now that two 23’s have gone early, the fleet size, iven the needs it is there for dictates that protection of the world shipping routes and the NATO task of closing the greenland gap in the event of the russian northern fleet breaking out en mass
in my opinion i think this is a great idea, to continue to build ships based on the type 26 hull to increase efficiency instead of building a completely different hull, the type 26 is a very capable ship and an anti air version of it is not a bad idea.
make the t26 too much bigger then you’d have cruisers.
I guess a lot would surely depend upon the expected weapons fit for such a vessel expected to come into service from the mid to late 30s into the 40s and beyond no doubt. Would it be similar size or would it require a lengthened hull form I wonder to give the flexibility it might need for the type of anti air coverage (and general purpose requirements if any) that will have to go beyond the T45 one presumes. Or would sophistication and reduced crew size enable it to do all it would need within the present relative size, no doubt utilising the modular bay areas of the T26. Interesting debate.
From the Aussie and Canadian designs, we know 32 Mk41 will fit up front. Ideally, we want somewhere from 64-96 VLS to keep them relevant with foreign designs.
There are 3 speculative options as I see it:
1) hull plug forwards to allow a single large VLS farm.
2) use the mission bay space aft of the funnel
3) replace the 5″ gun with more VLS
It all comes down to what compromises you want to make. Option 1 gives the most capability (plus a longer hull means it’ll likely be faster as well), but it requires the most alteration. 2 and 3 mean giving up capability, but they’re the simplest, and for a dedicated carrier escort the gun and/or mission bay aren’t relevant
and sort out the best location for a ceptor silo for the carriers!!
Oh that’s easy, starboard rear side. If the carrier is sailing into the wind for flight ops, any smoke and debris won’t be carried over the flight deck
If its fitted with traps or angled deck for drones that wouldn’t work.
fittingan angled deck would cost more than a t31😃
the welding of additional sponson space would solve the problem as it is only the spaces filled by th phalanx could accomodate one
that kind of plan should be well advanced by now, no aa system on the carriers is unforgivable, the same goes for the albions
in these days where conflicts generally begin with a cruise missile barrage maybe its an issue that might be worth adding to warship capabilitythe u.csg other than the power delivered from the f35 hasn’t much more than tomahawks from an astute or trafalgar. i like the concept of the russian club k system basically a bolt on bolt off setup a ships container space could be found on any R.N ship and that would increase the strike power of a csg fourfold at least.
What are the odds it will be four such ships? In terms of dimesions, there isn’t a million miles of difference between Type 45 & 26? Judging by the gestation period of the Type26 & 31’s we won’t be seeing these new ships anytime soon!
whatever ship, be it frigate destroyer or carrier, a simple matter always troubles me, the british ship industry doesn’t produce the ships quickly enough the worlds first battleship was built using shipbuilding techniques a hundred years ago. what’s more, they did it in 12 MONTHS!!!!! with this in mind, is it unreasonable for the clyde with modern abilities to required to produce TWO SHIPS PER YEAR?after all 4 years from start to finish for a batch 2 opv is a laugh!
Andy – the shipyards are likely capable of churning ships out at a much higher rate than they do. The issue is it costs the MoD more each year, as they’d be paying for 1 or 2 full ships, as opposed to around half the cost if its 1 ship every 2 years (although this isn’t entirely accurate, slower production does increase cost somewhat, such as with the QE class). The MoD budget is assigned each year, and so the bean counters want to spread the costs so it looks like they’re saving money, even if it ends up costing more per ship.
The other problem is how few vessels are ordered. If 10 ships are ordered, and the next shipbuilding programme is scheduled for 10 years time, the shipyard wants to make that build last right up until the next one starts. If they build 2 each year, they’ve then got a 5 year gap with no orders, which leads to experienced employees getting sacked to save costs, skills are lost, and then the eventually the shipyard is either not capable of winning orders because all the good staff are gone and costs and timeframes have to be increased, or the yard runs out of funds and has to close completely. This has been the problem of the British shipyards for years, and is part of the reason they can’t get many export orders.
A proper UK government shipbuilding strategy would allow the yards to invest in employees and processes, increase efficiency, and decrease costs. Reduced costs would mean the MoD can afford more ships, so the shipyards get more orders, which means they can further invest, and makes them more competitive in fighting for export orders.
Part of the reason that the US is so good at shipbuilding is that the government has given them enough orders to properly support them, allowing investment from the shipyards to benefit both the yards and the government. And ordering lots of different classes isn’t the solution. The US has been building the Burkes for years, and has gotten incredibly good at doing it. Each class needs to be ordered in a large enough quantity for the cost and time savings from experience to properly kick in.
This is the central point ref our shipbuilding and warship procurement – money. The tight and ever-diminishing defence budget only allows for 19 escorts and there isn’t enough money to equip these fully. There seems zero prospect of getting more money from this HMG.
While the yards could build two or three escorts a year, we can only afford one. That one needs to be split between (currently) Govan and Rosyth. Which means not enough work for the yards, greater cost per ship, not enough escorts for the Navy – and so no chance of a ‘frigate factory’ in the foreseeable future.
All branches of all three services are in the same boat, not enough in the kitty to fund even our minimal armoured fighting vehicles, helicopters and combat aircraft, let alone CS and CSS.
The escort position was not helped by the decision to build two carriers, escort numbers were sacrificed to pay for them.
its easy to point at the beancounters and governments but nobody draws attention to the culpability of the admiralty with its constant dithering and wanting to change this and then that.by the time these old relics in their dusty old offices in the bowels of the admiralty make up theirminds the costs in inflation have meant a reduction in order sizes
as with the q.e class building the second in a class is easier. the kinks in the design have been identified and worked out which along with investment in the the yards infrastructure increases productivity the frigate factory is something that the r.n should have had would have a major improvement during the type 42 build
as part of the contract awarding delivery time should be at a premium we don’t deliver fast enough for some yards to keep getting orders some contracts are awarded to scottish yards as a sop to the SNP and the unions
all the more need for a facility that can provide tandem building and churn out two ships at the same time
and that was in the golden age of rivets and steam powered cranes when dockies were real men
who said four? the r.n needs more than four the six 45’s are being flogged to death they’ll be worn out before long
Scottish politician recommends T31 be cancelled and all warships be built in Scotland.
Hard to believe. I’m shocked.
They haven’t a clue the SNP!
Cam he isn’t in the SNP.
What happens if Scotland moves for independence were and what happens to the building of ships then?
Build the new destroyer in the north east and a batch of 31s in Plymouth to provide resilience and competition
and the old yards at pompey and chatham
It’ll be the death of the Scottish shipbuilding industry if wee Krankie gets her own way, that will cost Scotland a lot of jobs and the people will be even more annoyed with her.
With the potential of ongoing work for decades at the shipyards for the Royal Navy, it will severely dent the Scottish economy but eh…. she knows best of course…..
go abroad
Th SNP and other left’s, seem to keep echoing Putin’s lines, to keep the RN as small as possible!
co*K
cynic😅
TBH I would rather the focus was on Type 45 having a mid life refurb with the full length vertical tubes fitted than a rush to build their successor.
Why do you believe this is a rush?
Well if the build date you indicate is taken as fact and notably dates dictated by the last of the last T26 builds then the in service lifespan of the T45s would look to be well short of for example the T23s (from 89 I believe so already up to 30 years old) and I suspect the proposed lifespan for the T26s. So he has a point on those bare indicators. However maybe the T45s (or some at least) would be retained for a while or the build times for the T4X would be extremely slow before they actually come into service. My suspicion would be they would be sold off pretty quickly though which would mean a pretty short service life relatively speaking.
The T23’s are actually operating way longer than intended. In consequence the longer life is driving the expensive refits. The NSS highlighted this as a problem, recommending shorter in service life with the RN and then selling on in order to maintain a cost effective build schedule.
if the carriers have a projected lifespan of 50 years, then all R.N ships should be the same
because the 45’s still have a reasonable shelf life left i’d prefer them to sort out the design sooner han later and to avoid the fiascos of the t26 and t31 where they couldn’t make their minds up on anything leaving a long delayed production.
The T45s will have been in service almost 30yrs on the timeline in this article.
I think we should bin mid-life refits and build new ships every 8mths, selling at around 18yo, giving a constant modern fleet of 27. 13 Type 31s.
or a HLP AT SOME TIME or a roll on roll off adapted for military use
.
Good move MoD. replace the Type 45 with a larger Type 26 and then design and build a 6 ship anti-ballistic missile, anti-surface, land attach, anti submarine Cruiser in the 12,000 tons class. If done within the next 10 years in conjunction with the Type 31e Frigate, this will enable the Royal navy to increase it surface / escort fleet to a more sustainable size. My suggestion is 4-6 of the new cruisers; 5 of the new Type 4x destroyers; 8 Type 26 Frigates and 8 Type 31e. In addition refurbish and maintain 4 of the current Type 45 and build 8 smaller BAE anti-sub. Leander Frigate with CAMM and 57mm guns (A Batch 3 110 meter River OPV like the ones for Oman, 2,500-3,000 tons) for GBP100 million each. Crewing issues can be solved by UK recruiting 5,000 University graduates, men and women, from the British Commonwealth at lower cost for 10 year enlistment with promise of UK citizen after 10 years. Less than 10 years ends in a end of service package with a small pension. Recruits can be had from the Caribbean, South Africa (Whites, colored, blacks and Asians), Southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi), West Africa, East Africa, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia. Effect of this recruitment over a 20 year period would probably result in no more that 50,000 new immigrants. The UK will be needing a lot more influx of younger working age people anyway which cannot be had from the aging Northern Hemisphere countries, so this approach to beefing up defense if the UK wants to remain a significant global power, and regulating migration, is not such a bad idea. My fantasy navy would give the Royal Navy 37 Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates (of various sizes and capabilities).
That’s a hell of a wish list. I suppose we all enjoy to to build these ‘fantasy football teams’ of Fleet characteristics but the funding isn’t there for even half of what you’d like.
I’m getting a little confused really as to what constitutes a frigate/destroyer/cruiser these days with the Type 23 and 26 both being heavier than a Type 42 and bigger than what much of NATO calls a destroyer. Then you have China with the Type 055 calling it a destroyer when it’s armament is in the same class as a Ticonderoga.
If you’re worried about the timetabling then remember that the development of what is now Type 26/31e began before production had wrapped up on Type 23.
I work with commonwealth sailors, they arent always the reliable type. Out of a ten year contract i expect you would only get about 3 or 4 years of sea service from them
The Italians are looking at a future Large Destroyer type ship (DDX) there might be a chance of a tie -in.
i was on the last cruiser the navy had H.M.S blake cruisers are heavy crew demanding and expensive to run in short, even though the fleet would be greatly advanced by having cruisers like the americans have the ticondarogas. maybe easier to buy one from them as they retire one every year.
Sounds as if the RN is looking at the same type of hull extension program that the USN is doing with the ABs. As long as the hull can adapt to changing size, power generation, and weapons fit then why not? Size wise I’m sure that hull plugs for both beam and length can be engineered if a larger hull size is required although this would probably require a more powerful propulsion fit to meet battle force speed requirements.
Cheers!
It would be interesting to know what the max number of VL silo’s would be on the T4X if they used the mission bay for additional cells.
We could be talking over 100 cells which wouldn’t be far off the Ticonderoga class. We all know the treasury would ensure it was fitted for but not with. But its still a good option.
Interestingly, the Tico’s and DDGs have such large magazines of missiles because they have to fire at least a salvo 3 at a supersonic target. you soon get through them at that rate.
Viper, and indeed Ceptor, being active and much more modern, do not need that rate of fire for similar targets. So UK magazines are effectively “deeper” than the paper number when compared to the USN.
That may have been true in the past. The reason for using the twin missiles approach is that the older missiles used semi-active radar homing. Even Patriot uses twin missiles to take out targets. This is one of the reasons why the Tornado was shot down during the Gulf war. The pilot managed to evade the first missile, but in doing so got struck by the second – just don’t mention IFF and itchy fingers.
The ship’s semi-active homing missiles rely on reflections off the target that has been transmitted by its tracking radar. As the target manoeuvres, the reflections will vary in strength and at some angles be lost. However, due to the angular displacement of using two missiles. If one missile looses the reflections the other may still see them.
Today, missiles such as the ESSM and SM6 both use an in-built active radar. The SM-3, depending on which model, uses a combination seeker (IIR, semi-active or active radar). With an active radar equipped missile, the ship no longer has to have a dedicated tracking radar. It gets away with this from information gained by the ship’s 3D radar and then using data-link control of the missile. So either at a predetermined position or ordered from the data link the missile’s active radar will go live. Because the radar is no fitted to the missile, the reflections are much stronger even when the target is manoeuvring and the missile can maintain a better track of the target.
Both the ESSM and SM6 have proven themselves against airborne drone targets in single firings. The ESSM developed from the Sparrow missile, is in some respects similar to SeaCeptor, in that it can be quadpacked in Mk41 VLS cells even though its bigger. The SM6 is a development of the semi active homing SM2. They have readjusted the airframe and added the AMRAAM radar seeker.
So in effect a ship armed with both ESSM and SM6 will provide a very potent mix especially on say an Arleigh Burke with 96 VLs cells.
That’s all very well, but lets get some hulls in the water first!
Yes, and build 8 of them to replace the 6 Type 45s.
Well here’s an idea.
Why not replace a Type 45 with …. A new updated Type 45.
Leave the GA alone and update the equipment as required (i.e. with all the additions and amendments made to the existing Type 45.). This would be cheapest option to replace the Type 45. The Royal Navy will then have three Standard Classes of Ship (Type 45, Type 26 and Type 31) allowing for a more sustainable UK Shipbuilding Industry.
Build the updated Type 45’s at Cammell Laird, Type 31 at Appledore and build the Type 26 on the Scotstan. Each yards design team would become a centre of excellence for the class responsible for incorporating all Additions and Amendments required by the MOD.
Thoughts?
Where would the money come from. This to me is pie in the sky.
It’s not pie in the sky, if we like it or not the Type 45 will need replacement and soon by navy ship design standards. The first of class has been in the water for 15 years. 10 years life left tops. It would take 3 years to build a new Type 45 and most of the equipment could be moved from the vessel being decommissioned. If the concept of 4x above is adopted it’s a basically a new design, all the ga will change, hydro Dynamics plus stability that’s very very expensive work. Plus it takes upto 10years to get the vessel from concept to in service. The r&d cost for the type 45 was around 350million when you do the math. This cost would mostly be saved if the program was continued plus using some of the equipment from the decommissioned vessel you would see a platform that is cheaper and more capable than a stretch 26.
The current system of life extension well beyond the design life of the vessels in service is expensive. It’s cheaper to build new than replace old rusted shell plating.
The navy needs to adopt hull forms and general arrangement that have the ability to be update as required in the future and have the right to the design. Nationalize design and contract out the build.
To be perfectly honest, all three services have their hands out at present. HMG will have no option, with the worlds newer threats and general rearmament, but to increase its military budget, especially as the UK looks away from the EU towards the “Five Eyes” Alliance which will require it to cover more of the globe as a truer Blue Water Navy it used to be up to the 1990’s cuts. What’s not discussed is the impact of technology. Take the mast and radar, as ships have a towed array, a “drone” type tether could extend the ships radar and detection bubble by one/two fold.
The problem with that is you have 3 different yards building 3 different ships and not one of them building enough to make it sustainable long term. The teams at those 3 different yards would become redundant to needs at end of the build and laid off. A decade later new people would be hired and a premium paid to restart it all over. The RN doesn’t have the scale any more to support so many yards. Even australia with 12 major surface combatants will only be building them at one yard and a smaller yard for the OPV’s and miscellaneous ships. The RN with 19 major combatants can at most sustain 2 yards and even this will cost efficiency with another smaller yard for the smaller and miscellaneous ships and MAYBE one yard for the larger ships if a long term build program is put in for them. But 3 yards for the major combatants just won’t do. For the UK if politics could be put aside best thing you could do is as Australia has. Goverment owned yard fully set up to world leading standards and either employ the team your self purely buying the design out of a competition or let the winning team operate the yard for the duration of the contract/program. Will allow same workers to remain in place just different upper management time to time.
That’s a fair point, I’d been planning on asking the same thing. If the T45 is the larger hull form, why not use that as the basis rather than the T26? I know that the T26 is technically a bit newer, but can’t imagine the design is that much more advanced?
Would it not be reasonable though, to use the T45 for the T4X and then T26 for T2X? T31 in its Arrowhead 140 form is a great option for GP frigate, but I’m still not sure how many other countries will buy it. Maybe licencing the T26 design to another yard for T2X ASW 7 GP (in the same way that we are licence building a design based upon a Dutch hull for T31), and leaving the T31 to work out its days without a direct design DNA successor might be a solution?
That way, all design work stays in the UK, although we still end up with BAE involved everywhere. Ultimately though, I think they’ll have to be to a certain extent; because combat management systems should really be common across the fleet, and I believe that BAE produces the majority at the moment. Unless we switch to all Thales or something?!
Isn’t the point that a T26 is designed from keel up as a quality AS ship, whilst the T45 is a dedicated AA ship. Simply putting sonar on a T45 would not work.
Yes, you’re absolutely right.
My apologies, I’ve re-read my post and it’s not as clear as I meant it to be. I was commenting on suggestions that the T26 could be used for a future replacement to the T45 as well as be updated to replace itself in the ASW role. I was suggesting that, due to its greater size, the T45 makes sense as a platform for development for the future AAW destroyer (T4X). As you correctly point out, an AAW destroyer doesn’t need the extra quiet hull and propulsion stuff that an ASW platform has, which reinforces the point I was trying to make. I didn’t mean for it to be the ASW frigate replacement as well. The T26 can become our platform for the next ASW (and GP?) frigate when it needs replacement.
Sounds like a policitican mixing wishful thinking and trying to buy votes in one swoop.
The whole similar setup to the t45, tells me actually he means it can’t support it and would need to be something less substantial. Wish comes back to wishful thinking.
Would be good if they had a long term plan in mind but I highly doubt it, especially with the concerns around Scottish independence.
Certainly can’t see Bae giving any go ahead to a ‘Frigate Factory’ any time soon, or in Scotland any time at all forseeably, unless the Independence movement goes decidedly in reverse. Would be mad to invest heavily there for the foreseeable.
Well here’s an idea.
Why not replace a Type 45 with …. A new updated Type 45.
Leave the GA alone and update the equipment as required (i.e. with all the additions and amendments made to the existing Type 45.). This would be cheapest option to replace the Type 45. The Royal Navy will then have three Standard Classes of Ship (Type 45, Type 26 and Type 31) allowing for a more sustainable UK Shipbuilding Industry.
Build the updated Type 45’s at Cammell Laird, Type 31 at Appledore and build the Type 26 on the Scotstan. Each yards design team would become a centre of excellence for the class responsible for incorporating all Additions and Amendments required by the MOD.
Thoughts
T4X should be a competitive process much like the Type 31e.
If Arrowhead 140 is successful, the odds are T4X would go to an up-gunned Arrowhead 180 or something similar. Say they’re twice the cost.
Could double the AAW fleet.
Would be interesting to know how that competitive process is going, it seems from the outside that the MOD has a price and spec in mind that is massively dis-aligned with what industry can provide for the small numbers being purchased.
I do like the Arrowhead, plenty of capacity for upgrades. Would be better to have IEP integrated from the start of build.
I have been told many, many times that ship*building* is one thing, but the UK also needs to maintain ship *design* authority.
This does not come from continually reusing the same hull for everything… however advantageous it is for economies of scale.
It’s a difficult balance.
Good point
If you’ve a good basic hull design, why not continue to use it? Plently of opportunity to exercise your skills in adapting to requirements, as already touched on in earlier comments.
Yup, plenty of design elsewhere.
Well if we’d stuck to the original plan of a single hull design to provide 8 ASW frigates and 5 GP frigates (aka Type 26 Project) then we’d already have in place what this MP suggests, whilst still having the T45’s in service.
Instead that got cut under that buffoon Cameron, and we got the Type 31e Project instead. The Type 31e design might sell, though it’s going to be very difficult for it to match the Type 26 design’s export success.
As for export sales to other nations, I doubt we’ll sell a single Type 31e except for those the RN wants to dispose of at EOL.
I disagree, I think we will get exports for the Type 31.
At the £250m price point they’ll be popular in South East Asia.
@Roders96
I think you need to look at that market more carefully. Unless the Pound plummets, that price is way too high. The only one who finds it cheap will probably go for the Type 26/4x.
Would need to do a LOT of lobbying to break the plans of those with long term license deals.
I would have to agree with IwanR. Especially when you would be competing against the Chinese and South Koreans. At best you could hope for sales of Licensed-built ships at local South East Asian shipyards.
It would be great to see this kind of forward planning realised. If SAMPSON and a credible number of VLS tubes can be fitted to the T26 platform, then this would be great. Personally I would try and speed up the T26 build and be able to bring the T4X hulls into service so they operate alongside the existing T45s, but I know this is wishful thinking. It would be nice to be able lock in future ship numbers and adapting existing types where possible saves a lot of time.
However, given the frequent twists and turns in the frigate replacement programme, which is currently based around 8 T26s and at least 5 T31s but has not yet been set in stone with a decision on the design and lead contractor for the latter type still to be made after 20 years of design studies and planning etc, I refuse to get my hopes up.
If the T4X is a viable proposition, what is its expected lifespan? Would it use the same powerplant as the T26? The basics of the T26 are tried and tested, which is good, and has hopefully made the construction of the T26 straightforward, even if the politics underpinning the procurement of the class has been anything but. However, if we’re to believe everything we’ve read in the comics, frickin’ lasers and rail guns are supposed to be the order of the day for the next generation of AAW ships. Would the T26 CODLOG powerplant be able to support such weaponry? Or would there be an attempt to install IEP? How difficult, expensive and time-consuming would that be? Or would these ships be a stepping stone class between the era of long range guided missiles and the era of lasers? Or is this an admission that laser technology is not as advanced as we have been led to believe? Or will we just stick the frickin’ lasers to sharks that can be remote controlled from an ISO container in a car park off the Las Vegas strip??
Don’t forget the sherbert
I very much think the era of lasers and rail guns will soon be with us in a decades time. Warships will need greater power generation capacity for these new warpons of the future. Yes the RN will also need Zumwalt type vessels in the future.
In which case, would the CODLOG system of the T26 be enough to handle it? Or would we need to up-power it, maybe switch to an IEP solution and how difficult will that be? Or would it be better to build a brand new laser weapon ship type that would form part of a task force alongside the T26/T45/T4X?
Your future escort (DDG) will need laser warpons for short range defence, making CAMM and Aster 15 obsolete. Maybe Aster 30 still might be useful, but uses becoming obsolete in 2040s. The future escort will still need warpons like Perseus.
A IEP solution is a certainly for a future escort vessel. It could look like a Zumwalt amd needing 70+ Mwatts of power.
I’m not as expert as most on this site but in my opinion, there seems little if no difference between a destroyer and a frigate. I understand that the shockingly small Royal Navy has no cruisers or corvettes which is beyond belief.
It varies from fleet to fleet, but in the RN destroyers are larger, air defence platforms, whereas frigates are smaller ASW/GP vessels.
Cruisers and Corvettes fulfill two roles that the RN doesn’t currently need. Modern cruisers are basically big destroyers with enhanced flagship facilities (and the RN definitely doesn’t need more command platforms given its size). Corvettes are coastal defence ships, and there aren’t any really any threats to the UK that are best countered by those
Thank you for this information. Very kind.
Been banging on about this for 3+ years now so glad to see common sense may be prevailing.
I would go further and build the first batch with the Sampson replacement and be done with it. Moving the artisan onto T31.
As for VLS I think we can go with 24 Mk41 Strike length and then 48 Mk41 tactical length VLS, this will provide one hell of a capability, with 24 x Aster30/NT, 96 Sea Ceptor and a selection of 24 Tomahawks or JSM’s etc. 144 missile load out is very sensible and provides massive flexibility.
The benefits of the UK having an AB class of ship cannot be underestimated, it would be a massive capability uplift. 4 of these in a carrier group with CEC would really push us into the next level of capability.
The other thing is that we could have a class of 13 of these super ships and then concentrate the rest of our efforts on the T31 in volume (25 to replace all MCM,Echo, Rivers etc).
We should speak to the USN, let them know that if they go with T26 that will be the 5 eyes nations using the same ship and the UK will fit CEC to all its ships. This would be massive and I think president trump would go for it.
I do think we should have a C1,C2,C3 capability that covers all our future requirements.
13 x C1 T26 – 150m length
13 x C2 T31 (probably huifeldt class for me) – 120-137m length
25 x C3 T82 (CSword 90 or Perhaps a uk Spartan version) – 100m length.
With 15 MCMs’, 8 OPV’S, 2 Echo’s, 6 T45’s and 13 xT23 to replace and the need for increased volume the above whilst ambitious is not necessarily outside of our needs or capabilities, especially as each class should cost 50% less than the one above.
So a T26 = £1.2bn, T31 = £600m and the T82 = £300m. This comes in at £1bn pa over 25 years hardly breaking the bank in a £18bn annual equipment budget.
Pessimist that I am, SDSR 2015 – at least 19 Destroyers/Frigates. 8 Type 26, 5 Type 31e, 6 Type 45 = 19 – what new build? Argument will be the Navy got an extra 5 OPV’s…..). Mid 2030’s, shipbuilding in yet another crisis.
I honestly don’t think things can get any lower number wise than they are unless corbyn gets elected. Even then I think ships would increase they just won’t carry any weapons and they will be for humanitarian relief efforts of some sort. Prob painted white too.
Now that the contributing nations orders are coming to an end,the Eurofighters sticker price has fallen through floor.Bae systems, I am calling your bluff, with all the development costs amortized,the learning curve summitted and all the advantages in critical mass coming from the Canadian and Australian orders the price of another couple of type 26 should be about half, what can you do?
Should the greedy bastards surprise me, this is the way to go, the type 31e is a dreadful plan as it meets non of our strategic objectives, being designed abroad and panic built in small numbers by mostly imported labour in yards which will have to be upgraded and then dumped.
If we can hold BAEs feet to the fire we can then get on with designing a proper frigate rather than the cruiser the type 26 has become and keep the the type 26 line hot for the forthcoming destroyers.
The Above comment by G, is a Degrade of the usual comments we get on this site.
It is Utter Garbage!
This Anti-British Troll has the Cheek to post on here! With No shame!
I hope the Editor takes note!
I name this ship ‘Type 46′.
They will be produced after the six Type 26 are completed. The type ’46’ should have static radar and we can could sell the design to the Americans as an Arleigh Burke replacement.
6? More like 8.
Unless you are of the mind that only 6 will be built.
TROLL ALERT
Troll G, was BANNED from Save The Royal Navy webblog a few weeks ago for disruptive and insulting behaviour and disrespect for ex-service men/women.
His comments are mostly disinformation!
Perhaps your idiot SAS wannabe freinds might turn up here as well.
Great move, if it is actually happened.
6x Type 45 update with laser defence also 2 change missiles Aster-15 with Camm and replace aster 30 with Anti ICBM defence aster block 2 missiles or other type Rim-161 standard 3 aka sm-3 and boat around UK to protect or fleet protection from ICBM or anti ship ICBM would be sense.
And additional of 6x t4x for basic fleet air defence destoryer with quad pack camm and with aster-30 (or quad pack meteor SAM version if we go for it for number of missiles)
This will be better and strength royal navy and UK defence..
For Anti ICBM defence to work, a aster 30 missile will need to be launched when a ICBM is in its boost phases, so relatively close to a launch site. So a intercepter missile can reach and destroy the ‘Warhead Bus’ at ‘post boost’ before the release of warheads.
It would be very difficult to destroy individual warheads raining down at hypersonic speed.
A T45 would need to be much further afield, then around the coast line of the UK, to be effective anti
ICBM system.
Ah it is a reason USA pushed other countries to set up around closer to Russia. Ie Poland and Turkey, Korea, Japan?
So there no anti ICBM defence against to hypersonic warhead?
That make a sense for British don’t purses focus ICBM beside anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) so aster 30 block 2 can do this job?
Sm-3 is should able cos they reach much long range than aster 30 block 2.
Is dragonfire laser can solve this problem but what range it can go? Depend power generation? So rail gun can shot down ICBM?
Daniel your questions are mainly right, presently there is No anti ICBM defence against a hypersonic warhead coming down to earth.
One propose of the development of Rail Guns, is for more effective ICBM defences.
But you would not want to hit warheads with
hypersonic projectiles, it will split them open with radioactive contents. So a rail gun would need to fire a projectile to hypersonic speed at the ICBM, maybe at it’s guidance unit, the fuel tank should explore too, or the ‘warhead bus’ to dislocate it, the warheads would still reenter atmosphere, but far off target, they most likely not explode, if in the wrong place.
Anti ship ICBM’s are mainly be single warheads, the ICBM would need to be destroyed, before warhead is sent on its trajectory.
I’m pretty certain that a hyper-sonic sabot fired from a rail gun will not activate a nuclear weapon. It will not have the fully surrounding compressive force to initiate fission/fusion. The sabot may have the mass to punch through the plutonium/uranium ball which may cause it to “fizzle” rather go reactive and basically turn it intro a dirty bomb.
A significant number of rounds will need to fired to guarantee a hit however.
Meirion X and Dave, thanks.
It is would be hard to get target to hit in accurate in very very highly speed even with guidance.
Gosh if hit wrong place will turn radioactive cloud in high attitude all over it is will be worse than impact as would spread every where.
So win-win for who attackers use this ..
Daniel, Nuclear warheads have being dropped accidentally by aircraft, and in aircraft crashing in the past, they did not explode. The warpons have safety switches that prevent them exploding when in the wrong location. So nuclear weapons falling on the wrong location don’t usually explode, other classified means of preventing them exploding might be employed.
Some of those dropped bombs very nearly exploded apparently.
Not true, the high-voltage battery was not activated, so could Not power the neutron generator to detonate the primary bomb, also it had no tritium booster(liquid), not injected, due to it Not being armed. Modern nuclear bombs will have classifed methods of arming and disarming nuclear weapons.
Well I deliberately said “apparently”. But, as I am guessing you know, 2 bo7mbs were dropped on North Carolina in the ’60s. One fell without it’s parachute and on landing went into the armed position. Obviously it did no go off, but not without first trying! And LOTS of nuclear bombs have been dropped accidentally … all over the place. And that just the ones from America that we know about.
But apologies, I have wondered of topic. Best for us to remain sanguine about the matter.
Not quite, If a Plutonium “football” gets hit by a rail-gun round, either it will be smashed apart into small chunks or get vaporised. If the football is vaporised the radiation will be highly dispersed and will only generate a slightly higher background radiation count. If the football falls as chunks, yes these will be very radioactive, but they will be highly localised.
The dirty bomb concept is to spread highly localised radiation over a smallish area. It is perceived as an area denial weapon. Unlike a full nuclear explosion which pretty much destroys everything depending on its yield.
What a good idea, Oh wait I’ve been saying that for ages, take the T26 lenghen it by 10-15 meters forward of the bridge and a T45 electronic fit, possibly retaining the T26 sonar suite, anti air, anti ship should be either the 56xMk41 or 56xA-70 in the bows, retaining the T26 midship Sea Ceptor. Possibly upgraded turbines might be needed.
What a good CV escort ship it would be, in theory it should be more cost effective than the T26 or T45 as it will be using current designs and technology with upgrade, so nothing really new would be needed.
Well as I said it should be more cost effective that is untill the government bean counters and BAE get there hands on it, I’m sure they will find a way to make it more complicated and costly.
ASW warships trend to sit low in the water, particularly the stern, while destroyers sit high in the water like the T45. Any attempt to convert a frigate into a destroyer needs to be thought through thoroughly! As I said in a earlier post, power requirements for future warpons like rail guns will be much greater, so a larger hull for power generation capacity in that area of midship as well.
So obviously, current systems will become obsolete in the next two decades.
What on earth are you talking about?Perhaps they could let some water in to make it sit lower.
Type 45 is already a mobile power station, it dosnt work like that.
I do not know about waterline issues etc… but power generation for modern weapons must i deed surely be important.
Just to clarify the water line issue, I mean that ASW vessels seem to have shallow sterns, most likely to access TSA, which might not be useful to a destroyer because of centre of gravity issues(CoG).
Mast head height and weight will also affect the CoG of a destroyer, which has to be balanced out in another section of the ship.
Most likely why the T45 has a deep stern.
The Mast Head height is the key matter. With increasing missile speeds you need to increase the radar horizon, that means get the array higher! If T26 can handle this, then an acoustically silent AAW destroyer/frigate can only be a good thing. If not then we need a better design or newer technology to defeat the hypersonic missile threat.
Ok, I am going to shoot myself down in flames here. Rooney, you are correct in that the SAMPSON would need to be 90-100ft above the waterline, the beam of the T26 and T45 has a 40 cm diffrence it does not sound much but does make a big diffrence. I have not seen the SAMPSON array but from the little technical specs I have been able to find it would seem that the array will also need a coolant as it generates 25kw (25 steam irons) of energy which means heat. It might also mean the wave guide would also need to be cooled. That means top wieght high up never good for stability, the more beam a ship has the better it can deal with top wieght.
Meirion X, in some ways you are also right, but for diffrent reasons to convert the T26 hull to be a Anti-Air destroyer you would need to lenghten the hull in the area of the mission bay and yes I suppose that could house extra power generating equipment down in the bowels of the ship for future weapons capability. The main reason that it would need to be lenghtend in this area is that there would need to be seperation between the Type 1046 3D radar and the two what appears to be electronic countermeasure masts. Space would need to be found for the power cable and wave guides.
I as others have suggested that the foreward Sea Ceptor launchers should be replaced with Mk 41 launchers, possibly 32 or four blocks of 8 in the tactical version as there is already 24 of the strike version in the bow section. This however brings extra problems. Unlike Sea Ceptor which is cold launched the Mk41 is designed for hot launched missiles. Each Mk14 block is 13.5 tons thats 54 tons, if the Mk14 is equiped with Aster 30s thats an extra 14.4 tons for the missile fit, then you need 220 gallons of freash water feed, a salt water feed for 4,200 gallons per minute for all four blocks upto 105psi drainage for this amount of water, aircon, a pressurised air feed 225psi and extra electrical power about 135kw all in the forward section of the ship and about 600kg for launch control systems and kevlar armour protection.
So now you not only need to lenghten the midship section by about 10-12 meters for the T1046 you will also need to lengthen the bow section just foreward of the bridge by about 8-10 meters. This would mean an overall stretch of 22 meters, this throws the lenght to beam ratio out making the ship unstable so the beam would need an increase from 20.8m to 23.85 meters to keep the same L/B ratio of 7.208. So in some ways it might look the same from a distance but she would be about 10,500-11,500 tons it would be a very much bigger vessel. She would be in fact 15m longer and a 1,000 tons heavier than a Arliegh Burke flight III class destroyer. I am starting to see the reason for the AN/SPY 6 over the SAMPSON/T1046 combination. Yes the RN suite is better but you need a bigger ship to put it in due to the seperation requirements.
I am still trying to work out what the two square blocks are port and Starboard on the aft section of the hanger, if it is for generator exhaust that would cause problems for the T1046, if it is air intake that should be OK.
So all in all it should be possible to use the T26 hull as the basis for the future DDG 4x but some very smart bunnies will need to get the slide rule out.
Overall conclusion, it might look easy but its not.
There has been a lot of discussion of the future development of the Sampson radar. As it stands the dual faced radar placed high on the T45 will give a faster detection time of a sea skimming missile compared to static panels. The radar rotates once every 2 seconds which with the dual antenna faces gives a much better near real-time picture of what is happening around the ship.
As threats get faster, the radar will need to memorise where the missile was last seen and predict where it will be when the beam sweeps off the target i.e. in the dead zone. The Sampson’s two back to back antennas mitigate this to some extent, but does not completely get rid of the problem. As missiles go hyper-sonic this will only exacerbate the problem. Artisan has a bigger issue with this as it only has one antenna array. A major design flaw I believe with the T26 having only the one primary radar.
It would be feasible to increase the antennas rotation speed, but then the processing power required to interrogate targets will also need to be drastically improved. The problem here would be dwell time, basically the length of time the beam is illuminating the target. A certain amount on target time and data is required to be reflected, so it’s able to be processed and then recognised as a threat or just clutter. Due to Moore’s law of increasing computer processing power every generation. Some of the timing issues can be compensated for. However, the dwell time barrier is still an issue, especially with stealthy targets. One of the issues is that the AESA will be transmitting a very narrow beam. This allows the maximum amount of beam energy to be generated. However, this narrow beam will need to be swept around the sky, which takes time (admittedly significantly less than 2 seconds). If you then decide to use multiple beams, the power is then shared amongst the beams and the effective range is lessened. The Sampson does have the capability to transmit a wide beam, again the range won’t be as great as a narrow beam.
The Sampson which is an AESA radar uses combined transmit/receiver modules, so as such there are no waveguides. The modules each generate the transmission frequency and then wait for the reflect signal. This means unlike a PESA radar the bandwidth can be much greater, as they can operate pretty much anywhere within the S band. However, to keep weight down, the number of TR modules is quite a bit less than compared to a SPY radar panel. To enable it operate continuously and at high powers the modules are cooled. Most PESA radars use separate transmit and receive modules, but use one centre oscillator to generate the frequency.
The static PESA/AESA panels have the disadvantage of being placed lower on the hull sides, due to their overall weight. This reduces the effective radar horizon compared to Sampson. However, as the panels have a much larger surface area, they can generate significantly more transmitted power. The Sampson’s published transmitted power is greater than 100kW, the SPY radars are double this. On the earlier SPY radars, this severely limited how the system operated, as the ship couldn’t generate enough power to operate the panels simultaneously at high power.
To mitigate the dwell time issue with operating Sampson using a narrow beam, The T45 also uses the S1850M radar which operates on a different wavelength (L band) than the Sampson (S band). This is currently a 3D PESA radar and is a development of the Thales Smart-L. This again can transmit at over 100kW but has a slower rotation speed of once every 5 seconds. It can transmit a wide or narrowish beam, but is much lower on the ship’s hull.
Compared to Arleigh Burkes and Tico’s, the T45 uses two primary radars for searching, operating on two different frequencies. The lastest SPY6 is supposed to be dual wavelength, but has been suffering issues, so has been only operating one frequency.
The Aussies have shown that the T26 can be adapted to use a static panel AESA radar with the CEAFAR. The CEAFAR is a single band radar (L band), but instead of using the normal four panels. It splits these even further to at least 12 panels. They have decided to uses a six sided mast with a pair of panels on each side. This allows the panel to be placed much higher than the equivalent SPY panels, though not as high as the Sampson. I’m not sure if the CEAFAR panels are placed closely enough together to enable the arrays to interact with other like a normal large single panel. By using mutual interference and addition, your generated beam can not only be electronically steered, but more importantly increase the beams range. So if it can then the range will be at least on par with S1850, if not at least equal to Sampson.
If a T26 was used as the basis of the T4X, it would be feasible to combine a rotating AESA like Sampson and a CEAFAR array. However, the height of the rotating antenna would need to be reduced due to the added mast assembly weight.
If Sampson development is going down the static panel route, it may well prove advantageous to mimic the CEAFAR panel arrangement. The ship I believe still requires as second primary radar. Thales have developed the SMART-L from PESA to SMART-L MM AESA, though still using a rotating array. It would not take a lot of development to build it as a static panel radar.
Davey B, thanks for that, learnt a lot.
You said that SAMPSON does not require a wave guide, then how does the signal get from the array to the processing unit?
I’m not trying to be stupid with my question, I work or worked in comms mostly micro wave radio relay links/ tropo links so I aplied that tech to the radar system.
I like the idea of the combined Sampson and the SMART L MM into a single mast. That should save deck lenght meaning that the future DDG4X would not need to grow to much in size.
Microwave ground data networks operate in a similar way to PESA radar. However, in an AESA radar, all the high power elements are contained within the antenna array assembly, hence why there is no waveguide. There will be monster power cables though, for the transmitter side of the element. The frequency creation and amplification is done within the TR module. This allows for more “creativity” on how the waveform is created, but also allows it to almost instantaneously switch from one style to another or change its centre frequency within the band. This is one of the reasons why AESA radars can be very difficult to detect.
I expect the Sampson works much the same as Typhoon’s Captor, in that the TR modules within the array when receiving convert the RF signal back in to something that’s much more usable. The returned RF signal will be tiny in comparison to the transmitted signal. For example, if its transmitting at its maximum power of over 100kW, at a target over 200nm away. Depending on the atmospherics, the RCS of the target and the type of waveform used. I would expect the return signal power to be anything from 1W to 100W (I’ll not quote dBs).
The reflected signal is converted from RF at the TR module (Some newer systems such as Captor convert this to digital and the data is sent over a data-bus network). This lower voltage and current signal is then much easier to handle, being fed down very pure copper content cables for filtering and processing. To remove noise the processing will need to be done close to the antenna (probably at the base of the mast).
It is the transmitter elements within the TR module that generate all the heat and require cooling. For example, if the radar is operating passively very little heat is being generated as the TR modules are just listening. The newer Gallium Nitride TR based modules can handle and generate significantly more power, whilst having a better signal to noise ratio than the earlier Gallium Arsenide based modules. This is one of the upgrades in the pipeline for the E7 Wedgetail’s MESA radar.
The older style PESA radars do still require waveguides, as a central oscillator generates the base frequency, which is then amplified and then sent to the transmitter elements on the array. These, in their most basic form are time/phase delay circuits, that control the beam steering only. They cannot do frequency hopping/shifting like an AESA TR module. When the radar’s receiving, the RF signal is fed from the receiver elements to to be processed by waveguides. It’s very close to the way microwave data-links work in some respects.
I’m going to put out a bonkers idea. For the T4X the hull of the T26 will probably need stretching as the current missile count on the T45 is too small. If it’s to match an Arleigh Burke or even a Tico, the cell count will need to significantly increase regardless of the type of missiles used, therefore the ship will need to be longer to incorporate the requirement.
As mentioned earlier, by increasing the length only messes up the stability of the ship as the beam becomes too narrow. Not sure how easy it is to increase the beam of a ship just with an additional plug? Right bonkers idea time. How about fitting a pair of outrigger hulls to either side and thus convert it to a quasi-trimaran. This has the advantage of allowing the “Sampson” mast to be placed as high as practicable, but also allows a static AESA panel to be placed higher. The other side benefit is that the outrigger would provide additional side protection to the hull. I’m not sure how this would affect the ships other attributes, such as steering, limiting going through the narrows etc?
For what little I know it sounds good to me would make a impressive looking beast as well!
Thank also for this info!
CEAFAR is S band (although an L band version is in development). It is much lower power than Sampson, SPY-1 or SPY-6thogh and that hurts ECCM. It should be noted that Sampson is over 20 years old and I’d based on high power solid state technology that has developed enormously (mostly for mobile phone systems). I’d be surprised if a lower weight, easier to cool version couldn’t be produced with a 6 face fixed system.
Sampson is an active radar, there are no wave guides.
I am fascinated that New Zealand is mentioned in relation to the Type-26.
The extant MEKO based ANZAC class are undergoing Mid-Life’s and will serve into the 2030s; confirmed by the 2019 Defence Capability Plan. The Type-26, while ideal for the Pacific are also a Tier 1 capacity when our existing frigates are general purpose (GP); the ubiquitous ‘built for but not with’ towed sonar array and SSMs. The longest range weapon in the entire New Zealand Defence Force are the Penquins delivered with Australia’s failed Seasprite programme (which New Zealand made work).
The upshot is that a Type-26 in the RNZN is fantasy fleet material given its NZ$1.4bn per vessel when that’s likely to be the fiscal cap for the two ANZAC replacements!
The priority for the RNZN will be two LPDs (or hopefully LHDs); one to replace the Canterbury and a second to establish standing force protection and HADR around the Pacific and in home waters.
The most likely candidate for new frigates would be the Type-31e, given it is of a size (and cost assuming its around GBP350 million in the end), which could be up armed over time. In this respect the Arrowhead 140 that has size and weight allowance to take strike length VLS. The timing of the Type-31e would also fit better with an out of service for the two existing frigates, especially with the likelihood of government furnished equipment being ported over from them (5″; CAMM; CMS; ASW and Decoys etc).
In respect of the substantive article, basing the next generation of Destroyer on the Type-26 hull makes sense. The RANs Hobart Class AAW Destroyers being based on a Spanish Frigate. All good for continuous build.
That said the Type-31e makes as much sense; especially if the price is kept to around GBP350m per vessel. If the Government ordered five or seven more for a class of 10-12, it would return the RN to 24-26 major escorts. That’s a better outcome than say 5 extra Type-26s and no Type-31s because it is likely that an extra Astute could be added from that fiscal envelope.
Having 10-12 Type-31s would free up the Type 45s and Type 26s to support Carrier Enabled Power Projection with the Type 31s used East of Suez and in home waters to augment the OPVs. It also avoids having all yards in the clutch of BAE systems given another line run by Babcock ensures competitive tension.
Arrowhead is based on a ship with similar radars to the T45 and more silos.
Granted the Mk 56 isn’t the Mk 41. But there’s also scope to replace one of the superfiring guns with another silo farm.
All this at a quarter of the original price point.
More Escorts, more SSN’s – and more F35’s. Better accommodation for service families – this is the opportunity cost.
I see where you are going but the Arrowhead is ideal as a GP frigate with the potential to become a high end war fighter if needed. It would be wrong, I believe, to use it as a basis for a T45 replacement given the hull is designed in the 2000s whereas the T26 Hull is a generation later.
The RAN’s Hobart Class AAW Destroyer is basically similar in weight to the T26 and packs a 48-cell Mk41 VLS. That’s why it makes sense to re-use its hull for the T45 successor.
I do agree with you that those who advocate for 5 more T26’s instead of the T31e miss the point that quantity has quality all of its own.
With the RN having 6 AAW destroyers and 8 ASW frigates, these can be invested in as high-end escorts as part of CEPP and to support Faslane. It creates enough work to keep a yard going near continuously meeting Sir John Parker’s report.
So instead of five more T26’s, that money would instead yield 7 more T31e’s, an Astute plus £800m for much needed base accommodation work. With 8 SSN’s instead of 7, it means at least two at sea at any time (one with CEPP (like a US Carrier Group)) and at least one covering Faslane.
That is the point you are making about Opportunity Cost. Indeed, I would say that if an extra £4.2bn could be found from Treasury, then that should go into bringing the T31e up to a class of 12 vessels and another Astute. Instead of 19 high end escorts you would have 14 but supported by 8 SSNs and reinforced by 12 highly capable General Purpose Frigates. Not to mention two yards working on continuous build that compete with one another to batches.
Extra manpower costs could be met by the Department for International Development funding the build cost of Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels (including Bay class replacements and a hospital ship). If classed military they could be built by non-BAE/Babcock UK yards and given what the RFA does, it has a dual military/overseas aid dimension in any event.
And given the replacements for Bulwark and Albion will likely be LHD’s; one apiece could go to BAE and Babcock?
That £4.2bn more for defence is modest, in terms of defence, \yet yields a powerful fleet and to keep Treasury happy, the cost does not come all at once. It would likely be spread over four batches but under an overarching commitment contract to ensure we avoid the Dutch-auction of previous buids.
Unless NZ ups it’s paltry defence expenditure of around 1% GDP! Time for NZ to stand up and get to at least 2% of GDP instead of relying on other nations to do all the heavy lifting.
You have no argument from me on that score given the Christchurch Earthquake and the more recent Kaikoura event showed that we need more vessels, more aircraft and more boots. At least the current Minister gets that and has been able to get 4 x P8A’s, 5 x C130J’s and a low-mileage vessel to provide Hydrographic and Diving Capability as well as support for LPD’s (that I hope will become LHD’s).
What’s missing are:
RNZN – Another frigate with towed sonar arrays and Naval Strike Missiles for all surface combatants, an Icebreaking OPV for the deep south with coaxial LMM, LMM for the two OPV’s and plans for their replacement; and vessels for the RNZNR equipped for anti-mine warfare.
RNZAF – A330 MRTT’s (to replace the B757); MALE Drones as well as more C130J’s fitted out like the USCG HC-130J’s (to augment the P8A’s; Several Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems plus Naval Strike Missiles for the P8A’s to resurrect a strike capability on the cheap.
Army – more boots on the ground!
I make that around 1.5% of GDP!
I believe that will cause us to create even less ships if we get rid of dedicated destroyers.
May just as well do the opposite; a significantly cheaper hull thanks to existing expertise and economies of scale, with a quicker production time and a proven power plant and sea worthiness. May even allow for an increase in the number of destroyers hulls
The TAX class? Crikey, guess the Treasury has already poked its fingers into the project
The RN would do well to open broader development discussions on an AWD destroyer version of the Type 26 with the RCN, who intend for a handful (3?) of their 15 Type 26s to be a dedicated AWD variant, to recover that capability lost with the previous retirement of the RCN Iroquois-class destroyers.
Whether they use a stretched T26 hull or something different, in the meantime we should make the most out of our 6 Type 45 destroyers and arm them to the teeth. I think 48 surface to air missiles per ship may be enough but what they really need is OFFENSIVE weaponry. The greatest defence is attack so fit strike length VLS and arm them with NSM until Perseus is ready.
Can NSM be put into quad packs like Harpoon, if that makes it any cheaper? I’d rather see them fitted with only 8 missiles than none at all.
With only 6 ships the most we will likely get to escort the QE carriers is two at a time, so we should make sure that those 2 are a force to be reckoned with.
Yes, NSM can be canister launched. Last year the US Navy bolted some on the rear of the USS Coronado.
In the late nineties the MoD procured 900 Storm Shadows, these warpons can be converted to SCALP,
Storm Shadow + booster, which can be fired from Sylver A-70 cells.
Storm Shadow would be great against land-based targets but not as an anti-ship missile. For that I think NSM would be best. It can be fit into strike-length VLS tubes or quad-packed which would be cheaper.
A modified version can also be fitted to the F35, providing us with an airborne and ship borne platform for offensive anti ship weapons.
I’d also say we should set up the Typhoon to be able to carry and fire NSM as well so in times of war we can strike any approach enemy ships close to the UK.
Unfortunately, I don’t think T45 will get offensive weaponary the reason for that is they will spend most of their life life tied to an aircraft carrier with massive offensive capability. The F35 will hopefully get a dedicated anti ship missile, but will definitely have SPEAR 3 which will be Capable of anti-ship ops. This is looking increasingly likely by the make up of the I-SSGW which is currently being allocated to T 23 towed array only. If I was to arm the T45 I would choose TLAM due to it’s range it can prepare the ground for air strikes by F35
What might be better from export POV is an AEGIS Version. Also more likely to get ongoing investment to Keep it ip to date than PAAMS
I am all for this concept in some ways as it would make sense to reuse an excellent Hull with built in acoustic quietening. However, the T4x will be coming on line in the mid 2030’s and the demands on the Hull are only going to grow:
To match peers missile silo numbers will have to grow significantly, as will weapons types.
Rail guns will be coming online and are very large by the looks of it and require enormous energy production.
Lasers will be common place by then, and I would expect a destroyer to have one if not two for complete coverage. But they are not suitable for all scenarios such as heavy fog which means we will still require a system such as Phalanx. That means double the number of hard points and again the energy supply to support.
We may also look at anti torpedo torpedoes, another system to fit in.
In regards to Sampson, will it even be competitive by then? We hear nothing of the UK developing anything in this area and seem to be leaving the rest of the world to storm ahead in radar tech. But the point is, what will the next gen radar look like? Maybe a combination of Sampson mk2 and fixed panels which would increase weight on the mast and affect ship stability.
So with all these considerations, the next gen destroyer surely will be 10,000 tonne plus to accommodate it all! Not sure the T26 hull could be stretched that much?
Would it not be better to scale up a T45 (8000t) Hull by 20% in length and beam and add in some acoustic damping this time round?
I Very much agree with you T.S
I agree with concerns about size required for appropriate energy generation and storage capacity; both the rate of generation and the storage capacity will be important – storage relatively local to the weapons to be able to meet the near-instantaneous energy discharge required for a shot and rate of generation so that the storage can be recharged as quickly as possible after firing to deal with swarm attacks. The two factors are somewhat inter-related; if local energy storage is enough to power multiple weapon firings that allows at least a limited salvo without needing to care about power regeneration rate but at some point that local energy store will run out and will need recharging, possibly only after a few shots.
The concern about size giving stability for radar weights as high as possible is also a consideration. I still wonder whether a high-low setup might be interesting, a rotating array (probably twin arrays as in Sampson) as high as possible to give as early a warning as possible re incoming sea-skimmers and fixed arrays lower down the mast with a shorter radar horizon but, once they have acquired a track, being able to maintain persistent contact and not having to re-integrate new data points into an existing track on re-acquisition. It’s still all top-weight though and the more stability margin to support it the better.
I do hope that the UK doesn’t retreat from high-end radar development. We have such a good system with Sampson at the moment, it would be a shame to walk away from that.
On the “Would it not be better to scale up a T45 (8000t) Hull by 20% in length and beam and add in some acoustic damping this time round?” idea, if we were going to scale up a hull then why would T45 be better vs scaling up the newer T26 hull? T26 has already taken more account of acoustic considerations vs T45 and, as a much more modern design, presumably has more modern design files created for it that would make it easier to work with using current design tools to redo structural calculations, re-run hydrodynamic and RCS simulations, recreate CNC cutting files etc for a stretched design vs doing all that for the T45 design?
This has been something that seemed common sense for a very long time (I’ve banged on about it for ages, as right at the inception of the t26 BAE have marketed it as having a high end AAW option and a number of senior RN types advocated it).
The US are officially coming around to the whole paradigm a bit before us in that hull form seems to have hit a sweet spot and lots of RD/changes and buckets of money in that area is not producing significant gains for the cost.
That’s why the US after spending buckets has gone back to churning out Burke’s (a hull first developed almost 40 years ago) and looking for a proven hull for its light frigate units. With its focus now on spending the RD cash on improved systems.
If the US can still be knocking out models of the best all round warship in the world 40 years after its hull was first designed (with no clear plan to stop)and we are planning for our carriers to be sailing the deep blue fifty years from now, why if we find a sweet exportable all rounder warship in the type 26 hull do anything other than spend the next fifty years building the crap out of it…..
Benefits:
1) significant reduction in R and D costs over decades.
2) significant reduction in retooling
3) Less risk of cost from first in class cock ups
4) All the engineering bits are the same
5) simplified logistics
6) simplified training pipelines
7) simplified and standardised refits
8)long term industrial planning for our ship yards
All this adds up to a lot of savings in both capital and ongoing costs…which in turn leads to more money for extra ships ( who needs the T31)
Risks:
We loss design skills, but this can be mitigated by the need for design work on each batch and the need for work on smaller units, amphibs etc.
Thinking of the drum beat. If you remove the 31 from the game and we stick with 19 escorts all some form of t26, if they last 20 years each you can literally keep up a one a year drumbeat for 40 years……and you don’t need to end up with:
1) clapped out 25-30 year old frigates giving your poor marine engineers migraines.
2) paying top dollar for replacements for your OPVs when they are only 15 years old cus you can’t think of anything else to build and your need to keep your skilled ship building workforce actually building something before the all forget what a ship looks like.
All in all it’s a brilliant idea…that was actually thought of about a decade ago.
I have come to a opinion, that a future DGG, based on the present size of the Type 26 hull, will Not be bigger enough to accommodate future power generation capacity, maybe 2 RR MT30’s + other gens., to meet the future warpon system power requirements e.g rail gun, and multiple lasers guns. To compare, the USN’s Zumwalt destroyer has 2 RR MT30 turbine-generaters installed. I think the stern also needs to be deep as a T45.
I very much think, the writing is on the wall, of what this points to, Zumwalt type vessels.
Look,it just dosnt work like that, you only need power instantaneously, you need a super capacitor.
Zumwalt is completely useless and has bankrupted the USN.There are no shells available for its guns, never mind directed energy weapons.
Please Ignore the previous poster, Troll G who was BANNED from the STRN webblog for bad behaviour.
His Trade is Disinformation!
That previous comment may mean our adversaries do not want us to have such warpons as I have commented on.
Umm…..
Picking up on a comment in this article and linking to the article on the market for naval radar systems. Surely a focus should be to invest in light weight mast and radar design now. It allows the T4x concept to progress but also could allow the UK to capture a share of the 15b market for naval radar systems.
So, no takers on my bonkers idea, then?
If you missed it, my idea for a AAW T4X hull would be to extend the T26’s length, which would enable the installation of additional VLS cells. Admittedly, this would upset its stability, as the beam would be too narrow. As it would be next to impossible to add additional beam by the form of plugs without significantly upsetting the ship’s speed. To compensate for this, my thoughts would be to add outriggers to each side to create a quasi-trimaran. This would significantly increase the ship’s stability allowing the carried weight to be placed much higher, such as a Sampson type radar and mast. It would also allow a CEAFAR type arrangement, where the AESA’s static panel could be placed higher.
This would give the ship the best of two worlds of having two primary radars, but also one placed high for horizon searching, whilst the other for everything else.
An additional benefit, is that the outriggers would provide the hull sides with additional protection against sea skimming missiles.
It may look proper ugly, but would it work?
DaveyB, your idea may have to be trialed usind scaled down models of a type 26 frigate. Any modellers on here!
CREWING ISSUES ARE OVERSTATED IF THE NATION COULD GET PRODION SPEED TO LEVEL WHERE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT CAN BE ACHIEVED THEN EXCHANGING ONE CREW FOR ANOTHER, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE SAME SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS SUBMARINES TO HAVE ONE CREW ON THEN ANOTHER ASHORE TO REPLACE I A LOT OF THE FAILURES AS USUAL, COME FROM BAD PLANNING. FOR EXAMPLE TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS DO NOT ALL END COURSES AT THE SAME TIME WHICH TAKES AWAY THE CHANCE OF A FULL DRAFT OF POST TRAINING SAILORS JOINING THE SAME SHIP .the same principle applies to ships going into full refits
Meirion X, if I remember correctly the RN did trial a trimaran I think she was called RV Triton, I’m not sure but I think she is hanging around somewhere in the South of England. Don’t really know what happened to her after 2015.
Ron, she was moored at Great Yarmouth unit July, now been moved to Hull, in Alexandra Dock.
She is owned by Gardline. She is due to be sold again over the next year.
I think it was used by the Americans to help validate some of the plans for littoral combat ship. We probably deemed it too expensive to pursue especially for bigger ship designs
I don’t think you’d even need to extend the hull; it would be a better solution to lose space in the mission bay (perhaps to combine it with the hangar space) to get a 24 cell mk41 silo amidships, which with the existing 24 cell CAMM and 24 cell mk41 fore would be more than enough.
I would not be surprise, that Mk.41 vls to become obsolete from mid 2030s, be be replaced with something else. It has been around since mid 1980s.
A general nautical question which could be related to the T4X requirement. The two LCS designs both use Roll-Royce’s water jets for propulsion. I appreciate that it will allow the ship to operate in shallower water. But does it have any other advantage over a traditional well manufactured propeller?
I think I remember that one of the supercats that operated from Weymouth damaged the harbour wall due to its waterjets.
if the government is serious about the fleet expansion, then its good to see a forward looking programme which, i hope will not decend into the same farce as whats going on with the type 26, now we’re in the same game withe t31 whatever the outcome the u.k should not just look ahead at expansion, but also how fast can it be achieved, the rate at which warships can be produced, i’ve always thought that not enough emphasis has been given to build rate.a lot of the work for building in modular work can be done at any factory with the ability for heavy plate production could, and should be given the opportunity to produce parts or perhaps whole sections which given the chance of cost savings through competition and faster production rates. when i left the navy, back in the ‘steam age’, i had to take a job in of the local factories, the one i was in had had a heavy fabrication shop which built the massive frames for power station erections. being not to far from the sea it was not uncommon to see massive haulage vehicles heading towards the port, where it was loaded directly onto a ship an sailed to the nearest place the customer could receIve it. but not by the M6!!!!!!!AS FOR THE SHIPBUILDING SHIPBUILDING POLICY ITS A DISGRACE WHEN A NATION, WHICH CAN PRODUCE, BUT DOESN’T KNOW TO, FAILS TO USE UNTAPPED FACILITIES. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO JUST BE ‘DOCKIES’ THAT BUILD SHIPS, EVERYONE CAN DO THEIR BIT. BORING RAMBLE OVER, !
Although very unlikely, considering the American aircraft carrier group protection is based around the Ticonderoga class if the uk were to mirror this 2-3 T26 cruiser variants could create a command vessel with a powerful armaments both air, surface and subsurface.
Each one virtually tied to QE class allowing other escort vessels of the task group to leave and do independent tasks. The RN I believe considered this with the last carrier project and the Type 82. If a 3rd was built it could be ideal for an ARG.
Be nice but probably pie in the sky!
In terms of T45 I still think the design is a good one now hopefully propulsion and power issues are sorted. If protecting carriers new developments such as mult mission bays are not really required. I would prefer a t45 upgrade (hull extended & relife) as well as 2 or more t45+. Surely cheaper and more effective? The cheaper still maybe T31/a140 with an AAW fit. Also will Sampson or variant be the future I know uk were working with the Aussies on Ceafar radar?
@Simon m
Only one Type 82 was built, out of 4 planned , the others were cancelled after CV1 carrier project was cancelled. T82 would of been classed as a cruiser
In its day.
If you lengthen the hull of the T45 it will affect the beam ratio, to length, and this will affect the stability of the ship.
Sorry to disappoint you!
They lengthened the t42 with no issues?
The Type 42 did not have a very heavy tall radar like Simpson, or a VLS. Batch 3 T42s were lengthened by 13m and beam increase by 0.6m, Compared to Batch 1&2s. T42s did suffer from hull creaking.
First & foremost an adaptive T26 Frigate aka the T4X concept would be a step backword’s ,smaller ,lighter & most of all less capable , after all the increased need for missile space or a reduction in capability & since the T45 destroyer is already restricted in it’s capability due to restricted missile carrage the whole thing becomes even more desastrous outcome . then we come to the whole problem of the T26 frigate a ship designed around an all purpose , multi role disaster relief/aid ,litteral combat , assualt landing/support , anti sub hunter ,ocean combat vessel etc etc & £1.1 billion a pop ,if that isn’t suffiecent to say scrap the programme know before we exspend a massive amount of the defence budget on an insane exspectatioin then it’s time to give up , as for the T31e it’s turning out to be the same silly design of multi missions bay here there & every where GOD help us .
Know I do agree with the concept of single design ship format , which would start at the bottom , a, A corvette size multi purpose vessel of around 103-105 M with one being a multi role concept ( mine, hydrograhic survey, coastal patro , disaster relief/aid) & an ocean patrol corvette ( frigate) design with a cost exspectation of around £230 m each with at least 10-12 multi role & 10-15 corvettes ( frigate ) . the next would be an extended design of around 130-136 M & being designed for anti sub hunting & ocean combat with a cost exspectation of around £500-550 M each & at least 10-12 ships , the last being a further extended version destroyer concept design primary ops air defence ocean combat , cost of around £ 750-850 M each & at least 10-12 ships , with thelast two variants not less than 8 units of each type unless restrictions to there operational effectiveness are to be exspected .
Personally, this is how i think we should be shipbuilding. Rather than having to develop a hull, layout, pathways, etc for each class, why not develop a single hullform for that generation of frigates; primarily as ASW as that role is more critical for the hull but with fore thought of the minor adaptions required for AAW.
Someone pointed out that this could reduce the design work and could lead to loss of skills/jobs, and it would if we asked them to build a standard hull each generation of frigates. But I disagree, this enables us to ask for more capable designs, to give the designers greater time and budget to develop something better. It would also enable continuous shipbuilding with more efficient construction which would enable savings and/or greater research funding.
Rather than 10-15 years to develop each T2x, T4x class’s design, give them 20-30 years and let them produce something game changing like the BMT F5 pentamaran concept (worth a google). This is in relation to hullform and platform design, for radar/sonar/other role specific systems I’d offset them with a tick-tock kind of funding so that there’d be 15 years of sonar design and research culminating in ASW frigate design and production and then 15 years of radar design and research culminating in AAW frigate/”destroyer” design and production, etc.
With regard specifically to a T46 based on T26 hull (6th gen hull), I think it’d be a little bit of a compromise as the T26 wasn’t designed as an AAW ship, but a compromise that would give us a capable enough ship, enable continuous construction between T26 and T45, possible design and construction cost savings/increase in hull numbers and enable designers the time and budget to get on with what I’ve written about above.
Personally I believe it will be a new hull in practice. BAE may use the 26 hull form as some sort of technical reference the same way the Astute started out as “Growth Trafalgar class”. But by the time you’ve widened it lengthened it fitted an extra 24 silos minimum provided for the Sampson mast and power and cooling plus growth margin, it will in reality be new. Not DDX new but still a definite evolution rather than a re-use.
Which is not a bad thing IMHO, as long as the RAN are on the same page.
Just to say, I’ve found this thread very helpful and most informative. It’s unusual to see such a high level of informed debate. Defence procurement is a ghastly thing to get right for so many reasons. Predicting the future is a mugs game. Predicting exactly who and what threat is the priority to combat is virtually impossible in the current geo-political situation, let alone that of the future.
It does occur that there is much talk of ships being “more capable” than their predecessors, but that must always be the case given the length of service involved. No matter how much more capable, they must still be bought in sufficient numbers to ensure operational capability. One wonders if six T45’s are the absolute minimum number required to guarantee this, or maybe to few?
Firstly , let’s remember that our Type 45s are the envy of many navies – they are extremely capable, and any replacement should be an enlarged version with a greater weapons load out and a greater number of hulls. Sampson with Astor is reckoned by serious experts to be better than Aegis and the SM2……that’s a major plus for the RN. Type 26 is a Frigate – keep it that way. Our new AAW Destroyer needs to be bigger and better than the vessel its replacing.
A lot of posters have assumed that the next Destroyer needs to be bigger than the Type 45’s.
I would agree that it needs to be better, as it will need to deal with an environment 30+ years on from when the Type 45 was designed, and the threats that the Type 45 was envisaged countering.
I don’t necessarily see that it needs to be BIGGER though. Type 45’s (and Type 23’s even) are, by the definitions I use, technically Cruisers already, as is the Type 26 that we are building.
Mast height IS important, and that has implications on CoG, which in turn has implications for hull shape. But technological advances both in materials and in the radars could mean the weight of the mast / antennae could be reduced (we have 10 years, get designing lads (and ladies)!)
Someone has suggested that a UAV or drone could be tethered (in the same way that a blimp might have been in past times) and that does open up some interesting possibilities for getting the radar higher on a smaller hull-form.
So where are the smaller, cheaper, General purpose vessels? Ah, you say, the Type 31e and the River Class OPV’s fill that gap.
Type 31e’s maybe, but too many people expect a small hull to do everything at the same time, and that quite simply was never the case and never will be the case!
I do think that the T31e has a valid place in tomorrow’s Royal Navy, and hope that the hull will be as successful as the old “Leander Class” frigates that numbered 26 hulls with plenty of exports and served from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, with many refits and variants from the basic Guns to Ikara ASW, to Exocet and Sea Cat and Sea Wolf. Same hull – but different fit-outs for ASW / NGS / SSW (Exocet) / AD (Sea Cat / Sea Wolf).
The OPV’s? Honestly? One 30mm gun (even with possible Martlett upgrade) and a helicopter pad with no hangar does not make for a very capable warship! Flexible Mission Bay? Yeah, fine for Maritime Policing or maybe Covert Ops, Ok for Humanitarian Aid. But honestly, these are not war-fighting ships, or even particularly credible as Escort Ships (could easily be swarmed).
And more of them!
As an Australian, when I looked at the type 26 frigates it immediately occurred to me that the multi mission bay amidships could also be used for housing extra VLS capability, so turning them into a guided missile frigate or a destroyer was certainly an option. I have every confidence that if GB goes ahead with modifying the design as AWDs then Australia will do likewise. We only have three AWDs in a very challenging strategic environment.
Any chance you could lease us an Aircraft Carrier? ( A couple of submarines would come in handy too! )
any ambitious aspiration to improve/increase the nations shipbuilding capabilities is to be commended. i wonder what about the actual builders? do we have enough shipbuilders to sustain these projects? have the skills been lost or are they polarised towards the clyde?equiping the clyde with a world leading infrastructure is vital soome lament the rate of production from the clyde, but a frigate factory building ships in tandem is a no brainer and possibly asimportant as the ships themselves