Page 2 of 94 FirstFirst 123456789101252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1402

Thread: New Frigates for the Royal Navy - Type 26

  1. #16
    Member Lawndart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Widnes, Cheshire, UK.
    Posts
    601

    Default

    I suppose, but I guess it's another case of having one and not needing it, rather than needing it and not having one.

  2. #17
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,563

    Default

    Well yes, but you could say the same of anything... and watch the cost multiply and multiply. Not only is there monetary reasons to consider, but also why go to the effort of designing a stealthy ship, if you're then going to clutter it with an assortment of radar-reflecting goodies! The Phalanx is a major liability when it comes to avoiding radar detection.

  3. #18
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    BRING IT ON, GREEK RIOT DOG!!!
    Posts
    5,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    Generally, the orientation of the CIWS isn't too important, the radar (or other sensors/other units) will pick up a AShM in well before it enters CIWS range, and will almost certainly be dealt with by a more capable sytstem (in the case of the T26, the CAMM missiles), and the ship will maneouver like crazy, chuck out chaff and decoys, throw missiles at the incoming, then eventually it will drive at an acute angle to the missile... so it will hopefully glance off the side or at least deflect much of the blast. The CIWS is not, and has never been, as big a priority as many people seem to think.
    Oh if it was only as easy as you describe it.......but it ain't that simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    The RN have wanted to change to a 155 for years. It's considered the Holy Grail of NGS (Naval Gunfire Support). The Mk8 (114mm) on the Type 45s is pretty much a temporary measure.
    One hell of a "temporary measure" that 4.5in gun has been. Been around since the late 70's. Upgrading the Mk8 to an 8in gun, which requires the use of separate shell & "bag", is going to take up a lot of space below in the bow area.....but since UK warships have always carried the rep as a bit cramped when compared to USN that may not as much a problem as having a reduced loadout.

    If the BaE/USN team can get the "rail gun" to the point it achieves the advertised 200nm range (the rail gun does not use a propellant charge") then perhaps an up-gunning to 8in in a frigate body can be realistic.

  4. #19
    Member MC Spoilt B'stard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dutch Caribbean
    Posts
    332

    Default

    Looks very nice! As i can see on the impressions the Royal Navy will be the 2nd in the world with an Intergrated Mast.

  5. #20
    Senior Member Eoin666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The Black Country
    Posts
    1,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    The RN have wanted to change to a 155 for years. It's considered the Holy Grail of NGS (Naval Gunfire Support). The Mk8 (114mm) on the Type 45s is pretty much a temporary measure.

    Bringing it up to a 155 means a massive increase in range and lethality. More importantly, it means we can use assisted rounds (currently there are rounds which have a range of ~150 nm iirc) and guided rounds (escalibur et al). So effectively any major RN surface unit will have a capability kind of like a simple cruise-missile - a precision weapon with long range. That means that troops a significant distance inshore can radio coordinates and have some seriously heavy firepower in quick time. Add to that the loitering munitions, and you've got one hell of an arty package.

    They're also developing UAVs which can be 'barrel-launched' from 155 guns, meaning a massive surveillance opportunity.
    All of this will be common with the Army, which is great news for the logistics folk, and the Whitehall penny-pinchers.
    I think 150 miles must over estimated, you need to get the shell into near earth orbit to achieve that. I'd read ranges of up to 80 miles or so.
    http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsSe...un_system.html
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm

    But talking of fitting CIWS to the Type45's for deployment, will that also apply to some sort of SSM, or will their sole offensive weapon still be the 4.5in gun?

  6. #21
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panchito12 View Post
    Oh if it was only as easy as you describe it.......but it ain't that simple.




    One hell of a "temporary measure" that 4.5in gun has been. Been around since the late 70's. Upgrading the Mk8 to an 8in gun, which requires the use of separate shell & "bag", is going to take up a lot of space below in the bow area.....but since UK warships have always carried the rep as a bit cramped when compared to USN that may not as much a problem as having a reduced loadout.

    If the BaE/USN team can get the "rail gun" to the point it achieves the advertised 200nm range (the rail gun does not use a propellant charge") then perhaps an up-gunning to 8in in a frigate body can be realistic.
    Of course it's not that simple! But i'm obviously not going to write out the entire manual!

    You misread what i wrote. The Mk8 is a temp measure on the T45. The T45 is anything but cramped, and was designed to accomodate a 155 gun from the outset. The T26 will be the same (possibly even the same hull). It's unlikely the T23s will receive them, and i'll eat my steaming bats if the 22's get them before retiring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin666 View Post
    I think 150 miles must over estimated, you need to get the shell into near earth orbit to achieve that. I'd read ranges of up to 80 miles or so.
    http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsSe...un_system.html
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm

    But talking of fitting CIWS to the Type45's for deployment, will that also apply to some sort of SSM, or will their sole offensive weapon still be the 4.5in gun?
    We're talking about assisted rounds, a kind of hybrid between a standard naval round and a mini guided rocket. They're also likely to be steerable guided rounds, with a nose sensor which can discriminate target types autonomously. That means you suddenly have a far cheaper alternative for engaging surface units with less complex defences (rather than hitting them with an SSM). Much of the tech already exists, it's just a matter of adapting it for the specific use.

    Regards the T45 + Harpoon, again everything is ready, it's just a case of bolting it on. Current thinking is not to include an SSM ability, because the 45's are never going to be actively hunting surface units (though the onboard helo might). They are afterall air-defence ships, with some multi-role ability, not the other way around. This is part of the reason why Daring will sail with a Lynx rather than Merlin this summer; the Lynx being a jack of all trades though less capable in ASW. She'll be going somewhere fairly benign this time anyway, and will probably have another unit(s) nearby.

  7. #22
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,563

    Default

    From Janes:

    "The FSC C1 baseline design suggests a ship 141 m-long and displacing 6,850 tonnes. It will be equipped with a low-frequency active variable depth sonar and two launchers for the Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime), firing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile. -

    Options include a vertical launch system for Tomahawk or Storm Shadow land-attack missiles, or alternatively a modified M270 guided multiple-launch rocket system. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is also an option, while the main gun will be a 127 mm, 155 mm or refurbished 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mk 8 mount.

    Aviation facilities include a flight deck capable of supporting a Chinook helicopter, a hangar for a Merlin-sized helicopter and a smaller hangar for unmanned aerial vehicles. Type 26 will become the lead platform for unmanned vehicles but will not be responsible for their development and procurement.

    Below the flight deck, a mission bay and stern dock will hold four 9 m rigid-hull inflatable boats, the towed array sonar and a surface ship torpedo defence system. Alternative options for the mission bay will be examined as this feature is considered a design driver.

    The frigate will have an all-electric propulsion system or a hybrid propulsion drive, giving a range of 7,000 n miles at 18 kt. Early concepts indicate a ship's company of 150 personnel plus an embarked maritime force of 36.

    Current assumptions call for the construction of up to 10 Type 26 ships, designed as a versatile combatant to protect expeditionary task forces and provide anti-submarine warfare defence."


    So there you have some specs for these ships. They're roughly 1.5 times the displacement of the current Type 42 destroyers in service with the RN, and are heavier than a Dido Class light cruiser.

    We're proabably looking at 6x Type 45, 10x Type 26, 14x C2 (designation not yet released), and 10-20 C3 (designation not yet released). That's a pretty impressive force, though it's on the assumption that what we've been told so far about the C2 and C3 is accurate.

    Based on the above specs, the Type 26 would be extremely exportable. I can think of several countries (most obviously Australia and New Zealand) who are already looking for similar ships, and are at a similar project stage to the RN. Thus far, I'm pleasantly surprised by this 'frigate'[*******silver]* [/COLOR]
    [*******black]Now all we need is for the politicians to but out, and let BAE get on with it.[/COLOR]
    [*******#c0c0c0][/COLOR]
    [*******#c0c0c0]*cough destroyer cough cough[/COLOR]

  8. #23
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,279

    Default

    Very intersting info, happyslapper! And nice pics, too.

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    Based on the above specs, the Type 26 would be extremely exportable. I can think of several countries (most obviously Australia and New Zealand) who are already looking for similar ships, and are at a similar project stage to the RN. Thus far, I'm pleasantly surprised by this 'frigate'[*******silver]* [/COLOR]
    [*******black]Now all we need is for the politicians to but out, and let BAE get on with it.[/COLOR]

    [*******#c0c0c0]*cough destroyer cough cough[/COLOR]
    First, thanks for all the nice info and pictures!


    Since Australia have already decided to go for collaboration with Spain to develop their Hobart class, perhaps the most logical for them would be to build their frigates on the F100 as well...

  10. #25
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,563

    Default

    Hull commonality isn't really a benefit unless you're the one building it.

    Aus has a massive opportunity here to stamp it's mark on the project from an early age. It would be far harder to Navantia et al to adapt an exiting design to meet the requirement than for BAE to roll with the modular component based approach that they will be doing anyway. The similarities between Australia's stated requirements, and what we know so far about the T26 is uncanny. They'll be missing a trick if they don't seriously examine how they might be involved.
    Plus, for purely nostalga reasons, it would be fantastic to see the RN, RAN, and RNZN sailing the same class again. Not since the Leander/Type12 has that happened.

  11. #26
    Back in full force! Mat_fr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    France.
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    From Janes:
    two launchers for the Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime), firing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile.
    What are these missiles ? Aster 15/30 ?

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    So the RN will in the future have two Queen Elisabeth, six type 45, ten type 26, and eight C2?

    THe RN will definitely remain one of the more potent navies in the world.... as said already, those type 26 could easily be described as destroyers.

    I am actually impressed the UK keeps six type 45 -- look at the French and Italians they end up with only two Horizon's each.

  13. #28
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat_fr View Post
    What are these missiles ? Aster 15/30 ?
    CAMM. It's a variation of the ASRAAM which will enter service around 2018. It'll replace the Army's shorad Rapiers, and the Navy's Sea Wolf, as well as still being used by the RAF/Fleet Air Arm in the air to air role. Aster 15 will probably be dropped from the RN's invetory once CAMM becomes available. Reasons being mainly logistical, and part weight-of-fire. We can re-booster the A15s to A30, rather than loosing all the money invested, and then quad-pack four CAMM into the same space as one A15 (on the Sylver launchers). So that means a massive difference in firepower for the Type 45's, as well as gaining a different missile. The CAMM will also be able to be launched from 'plug-in' deck launchers, and even man-packed.
    http://defense-update.com/products/c/camm.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Loke2 View Post
    I am actually impressed the UK keeps six type 45 -- look at the French and Italians they end up with only two Horizon's each.
    Aye but it's not much when the original plan was for 12, and the need for these ships has only risen since that number was decided on. I dread to think what the unit cost would have been if we'd slashed the programme any further - a lesson I sense is being learned in the Type 26 (hence the obsession with exportability).

  14. #29
    Back in full force! Mat_fr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    France.
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    ok, thanks happyslapper

  15. #30

    Default

    Thanks for all this info.

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    We're proabably looking at 6x Type 45, 10x Type 26, 14x C2 (designation not yet released), and 10-20 C3 (designation not yet released). That's a pretty impressive force, though it's on the assumption that what we've been told so far about the C2 and C3 is accurate.

    I tend to believe these figures are a bit too optimistic, this would lead to an escort fleet of 30 with 10-20 OPVs, even if we bear in mind that the C3 could replace the minehunters, hydographic ships and the River class ships. The number for 14 C2 puzzles me especially as it's the first time I've seen it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •