Reply With QuoteA couple of (it has to be said, clumsy) models from BAE:
It's still very much ongoing. The last I heard was a defence minister Peter Luff on 16 May.
The Type 26 global combat ship is in the assessment phase at the moment, and we are working extremely hard to see whether we can build it in partnership with other nations. I cannot go into too much detail at the moment, because much of it is commercially sensitive, but I can assure the hon. Lady that as part of our defence diplomacy initiative, it appears to be going rather well.
A couple of (it has to be said, clumsy) models from BAE:
Beautiful ship. Looks like a scaled down Type 45, too.
Do NOT like the off-set UAV hanger.
What are the systems between the main gun and the VLS ?
strange layout for these VLS BTW (side by side)
nice ship though
torpedo lauchers I guess
I think they've tried to show every capability on a single model.Originally Posted by Mat_fr
There's going to be 3 versions; General Purpose, Anti-Submarine, and Air Defence.
You can see the torpedo tubes in a sort of ''B+'' pos! I would be disappointed if that's where they are on the genuine vessel, the current launch system on the T23 is absolutely fantastic, and why they wouldn't retain it on the T26 is beyond me.
The final design may be very different (we've already seen changes from the renders of a few months ago (Phalanx siting being an obvious one).
These are going to be absolutely fantastic ships, I don't doubt that. I just hope that a) the cost can be controlled, and b) we can turn it into an export success.
Happyslapper,
If those two objects are supposed to represent torpedo tubes,then I agree with you. They are sited in the most ridiculous position.
Also why do they have to have a seperate mini hangar for the UAV,I would have thought one large hangar would provide more space overall. After all CVF or any other aircraft carrier doesn't have seperate hangars for different aircraft.
I see they are now talking £300m per ship as opposed to the £500m put forward by BAE, I can't for the life of me see that as the final price if our previouse builds are anything to go by.
As far as exports are concerned,IMHO the only hope is to get customers in from the design onwards so that they can have input on what their countries needs are. That is the only way that we will be able to compete against vessels already building such as FREM.
I suspect (and I may well be wrong) that it is for commonality/deletion purposes. There's a handful of navies either currently or imminently operating shipborne UAS, so it's an easy deletion for export purposes, whilst maintaining hangarage appropriate to most naval helos (I think we're by far the most ambitious in that regard - having Merlin on escorts). I agree that in many respects it would make sense to have a larger, more flexible space.
Those launchers are usually kept at the rear. When the aster comes crashing down due booster problems, you wouldn't want any other ordnance there.
My guess is room for expansion.
Lastly in this day and age of reducing radar (not LO) the model can be improved. The sides of the bridge, blinds for the Harpoons. The fire director looks huge and there is an exposed basic radar?
The following was post by 'Troothsayer' 06/06/11
An interesting little snippet by Liam Fox during a Q&A session at the recent ISS conference.
Regarding the FPDA, there is no doubt that we have a great potential for cooperation not least in the maritime domain. We have already had discussions on the procurement front about how, with the adoption of the Global Combat Ship, the Type 26, being developed in the United Kingdom we can effectively perform the maritime equivalent of JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) – i.e. a common but variable basic vessel How we start to look at joint training, more joint exercises, procurement and doctrine. We have already discovered some fairly rich seams where we think that we can work together.
Apparently this was said in the company of the Australian defence sec,Stephen Smith. Could this be a hint at something going on there.
First posted on defencetalk website.
Last edited by jonas; 06-06-2011 at 08:54 AM. Reason: protocol
The First Sea Lord has confirmed that the RN is set to receive 13 Type 26 Frigates. This comes as a relief/nice surprise, and I only hope it's not at the expense of another programme.
*Raises glass of milkshake in a toast* Sweet!
Unfortunately it appears nowadays that the statements like this from the heads of the three armed services,are little more than wish lists. Like the RAF was going to get approx 230 Typhoon,the Army approx 2000 FRES in various forms and the RN 12 T45.
So when he is called into No 10 by the PM who lets it be known that he has been given a dressing down,thus further publicly humiliating him it shows the esteem that this government hold our armed forces in.
Only Yesterday Cameron was presenting wings to RAF pilots who have just complete their courses,to be told today that these same 30 pilots will have no jobs. The wording was 'They will not be proceeding to be fighter pilots'
Someone will know better than I how much it takes in time and millions of pounds to train one pilot,multiply that by 30 and once again the MOD waste machine goes into overdrive. Apart from which 30 young persons carreers are dumped on the scrap heap.
Bearing in mind that these same people might have been the ones flying F35 of CVF I can't see much relief/nice surprise in his statement.
I bet that nice Mr Osborne is doing his sums already.
Which variant though ? That is the question ! Probably won't all be ''all singing, all dancing.''
Posting Permissions
