Type 26: The future backbone of the Royal Navy

HAVE YOUR SAY

05 April 2012

Let us hope that the RN ends up with more than just thirteen of these ships; if we are to avoid gapping and overstretch at least eighteen should be the target. However, if the past is anything to go by someone from the MoD will suggest that because these ships are so much more capable individually the RN will only require eight or nine to replace thirteen type 23s!
Bob M - Surrey UK

05 April 2012

Bottom line 13 is not enough of them and they all need to be C1 variant!
Graham - High Wycombe

05 April 2012

The Type 26 frigate will be overpriced, poorly equipped and have minimal export potential. Same old story, money down the drain.
GB - London

05 April 2012

The liner Queen Mary 2, has a thicker than usual hull, allowing a 40 year service life. As steel is cheap, can we please have T26 with a hull as thick as QM2. A 40 year service life would give the taxpayers, value for money.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

05 April 2012

Why not make India a partner in this project ? That would help in building a much larger supplier base at low cost and also ensure economy of scale as the IN would procure the ships in much larger numbers.
Doc - AD/UK

06 April 2012

I hope the design has more than the 16 VLS tubes currently been muted. One problem which is not commonly acknowledged is that even if the new VLS is Mk-41-like and can accept missiles like TLAM; the missile stock does not exist. I would like to see missile such as the LWM / Brimstone multi-packed to provide the ships with an added dimension in close-in surface defence; especially in the littoral. Another missile / rocket type the class could very well benefit from is a British ASROC like system. There is also no word on what will replace the Harpoon system.

I know a lot is promised from the Artisan radar system; which has some SAMPSON technology in it; but I would still much prefer the real deal - SAMPSON - been fitted. This of course would allow the T26 to be re-roled into AAD units at a drop of hat to augment the too-low in number T45's. The SAMPSON radar technology could be made more affordable with a smaller array (this can be upgraded at refits as required). I am not sure about the hanger facilities if the government doesn't invest to ensure suitable numbers of airframes exist to be deployed. Really any captain would want two manned helicopters plus the future UCAV's. The 4.5" or 5" (OTO or BAE) should really be shelved and the 6.1" AS90 system which was shelved in the 2010 SDSR should be adopted. This has much improved range and lethality over the existing systems; while sharing commonality with British Army equivalents. Rail-guns for future USN ships are just too expensive for the UK to invest in this time around. Close in defence should be 4x 30mm turrets controlled by the main AESA radar or backed up by optical systems (like the USN LPD's) - these would replace the current Phalanx and DS30 systems.

Numbers. Well T45 units 7 & 8 were cancelled for the GSC project; it is widely regarded that the SDSR wasn't worth the paper it was printed on; so defer to the previous review in 1998. This means the UK needs the RN to field 32 surface warships; so with 6 T45's in or about to enter surface this leaves a deficit of 26 warships. There has also been talk of a subsequent T27; why not build the currently planned 13 T26s and advance the T27 slightly offset from the T26 building programme so the RN can RN has time to rebuild manpower resources required to man them. Both programmes could feature commonality like the older successful Type 12's. I don't like the idea of under gunning warships; but with some operations like anti-piracy not requiring a fully equipped high-end warship; a T26/27 with a lighter weapon fit-out could be the best option; I say this with the point that even though you don't need a $600,000 missile to take out a dhow full of skinnies; you do need a vessel with all the advanced electronic systems to maximise its surface effect in such missions. Besides, in a medium / high intensity conflict the UK would appreciate having the available hulls to to use; especially since one aspect of the current fleet is it has no battle reserves!
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

06 April 2012

The answers (or rather the lack of) sound like something from a politician rather than a business executive,very evasive.

I can understand BAE wishing to protect their investment by not giving too much away,but not even a hint as to the general armament i.e. any TLAM or ASM system to be fitted. The only thing answered was fitting of sea ceptor and that is already in the public domain.

Looks like they are going to keep things very close to their chests on this one,I expect a lot of this is under the guidance from the MOD.

Still,any news is good news on this project,at least it is going ahead (it seems)

Thanks for your efforts ED.
michael - notts

07 April 2012

Either this interview was conducted too early in the design phase to ever really provide anything of import, or as always this defense corp is dragging its heels and giving the same basic answers as always.

UAV's? No response.
Anti-Ship? No response.

Basic tenor of the replies, 'We are still working on a design, it will be flexible, we dont have any committed international partners but want them etc...'

Sack them, get the ships built in the UK using designs from Damen, or even versions of the LCS or New US Coast Guard cutters.

Oh that's right, they cant or wont. All/most UK shipyards are owned by this shower so they can hold the government to ransom.
Anon - Abroad

10 April 2012

Once the country has money again I'd like to see the navy return to an acceptable size as clearly having two aircraft carriers and 19 surface vessels of reasonable capability is insufficient for any activity of merit. And this assumes we even get two aircraft carriers...

The question which governments (or more specifically the civil servants who after all are unaccountable) need to answer is what is the real vision for Britain and its naval capability; what do they want the navy actually to do?

Certainly the navy at the moment is being placed under huge stress with little scope for maintenance when combined with continuous projection (Type 45 anyone?).

The last defence "review" left little or nothing in reserve and, like so much of mainstream politics, relies on top-line spin rather than substance (surface fleet of 19 as opposed to how many can be at sea at any one time).

As with so much of the defence review, people paid by the British taxpayer conspired to destroy yet more British ingenuity and jobs so we could buy more foreign-made equipment "off the shelf". We will rue the day we ever decided defence strategy by cost - the result will be yet fewer jobs for British people and even less opportunity for export.

The dark heart at the centre of British politics continues to destroy us from within... I look forward to our future of exporting housing estates and employing more teleworkers to service our overdrafts. Ah, what vision. What strategy...
Michael - Hertfordshire

10 April 2012

Mostly waffle.

There is no discussion of modularity which has been the key to the export success of the MEKO designs
John Walkley - Budapest Hungary

10 April 2012

I guess in all this, we need the right balance, between Air-defence and Anti-submarine escorts. If it is affordable, I'd like to see about 16 T26's and about 12 T45's. This would be a very powerful force and would avoid overstretch. If land up operating both carriers, then we certainly would be able to take on just about anyone else.
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK

10 April 2012

Why once again are we banging on about "export potenential" in the hope of reducing cost ? There will never be enough of these ships built to make a big enough impact, so is it really worth all the hype and effort ? Lets just build what we need - a Type 23 replacement, with upgraded capabilities, ie; towed array sonar for all, Sea Ceptor missiles, ARTISAN radar, Type 45 propulsion for commonality/ reduced training. Gun armament and other suitable equipment can be cross decked from retiring T23`s to further cut costs. Order a single batch of 12 identical ships, plus 3 extra Type 45, to go for the "bulk discount" approach. then build in parralel half a dozen low-spec corvettes or light frigates of 2200 - 2300 tons. Emphasis on range and helo facilities for independant anti piracy, drug patrol etc. These ships could be built with armament from "stock" such as 4.5" gun, giving secondary back -up wartime duties eg; shore bombardment, commando ops etc. They would also give back some opportunities for junior command, something which is being eroded with the emphasis on major warships ! Together with the "Rivers" for home waters patrol, this mix would return some of the flexibility which will be more and more missed in years to come.
Steve R - London

11 April 2012

As currently 'planned', Type-26s will be too small to generate sufficient power to run the radars, weapons and ship self-defence systems required by today's- and expected-in-the-near-term-future- threat environments...

... consequently hugely damaging their potential marketability to any countries other than the UK....

If a UK govt objective is to retain defence and related hi-technology work-force skills and industrial base capabilities within the UK- this objective can only be harmed by UK industry orders for naval projects being restricted to 'for UK use only' types of equipment, platforms, etc....

Right now- in terms of the international marketing potential of technologically advanced, economical-to-operate Destroyer-size AAW/ ASW/land-attack/BMD platforms, the UK's existing designs for Type-45 Destroyers have the potential to lead ALL other countries offerings....

Unfortunately, this situation could negatively change in the very near future:

The US is about to begin preliminary design work (in 2012) on an upgraded version of their Burke class Destroyers- the "Flight III Burke class" Destroyer- with the main objective of improving on (the current) Flight IIA Burkes' BMD capabilities:

- US Congressional Research Service DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs report, 03_02-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

- US Govt Accountability Office DDG-51 Destroyer program report, January-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587883.pdf

- "(DDG-51) Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)", 2011:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/bmds/2011aegisbmd.pdf

- "US Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress", 14_03-2011:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

The first Flight III Burkes are projected to begin construction in FY 2016-2017... with 2- 3 years to build and complete the fitting of each ship and its sea trials....

Flight III Burkes when built, are intended to be fitted with a substantially more capable set of radars*** than Flight IIA Burkes along with an improved CMS and upgraded power generation capacities...

Despite the fact that the six Type-45s that the UK govt has approved construction-funding for are not being fitted with most of the weapons and weapons systems that they were designed for, even in their current 'virtually unarmed' conditions, Type-45s easily beat the US's Burkes in the areas of radar capabilities, weapons targeting capabilities and propulsion systems/energy generation capacities.... and Type-45s are MUCH cheaper than Burkes to produce:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/ill-take-ddg-for-1000-alex.html

Currently- if properly equipped with suites of weapons, sensors, ship self-defence systems, etc- the UK's Type-45s 'look pretty good' compared to other countries' similar sizes and classes of warships that are being marketed- or could be marketed- worldwide...

Potential international customers for customized, UK-built warships may not want to be pigeon-holed in terms of warship outfitting options, IE: they may prefer to have 'choices' in how the vessels they consider buying are fitted out for AAW, BMD, land attack, etc...

While it is possible that some potential customers for, say, 1/2 a dozen built in-the-UK Type-45s, could want their vessels fitted out with the egregiously limited-in-versatility, untried-and-untested-for-BMD 'sylver A50' and 'sylver A70' VLS weapons launchers & the similarly dangerously limited Aster-30s (puny range- barely 1/6th of SM-3 Block 1's 300 + miles; lousy seeker; inadequate for most types of BMD*)...

... some potential customers for customized, built-in-the-UK Type-45s would prefer the unrivaled in versatility MK 41 VLS weapons launchers and the fully-developed, fully-tested, ultra long-range and rapidly improving SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, series of missiles****... and their requisite compatibilities with and abilities to work with the US's com networks, satellites and world-wide radar assets and bases...

http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/products/sylver/

http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020042/vertical-launch-system?_afrLoop=492286892065000&_afrWindowMode=2&_afrWindowId=null

Similarly, some potential customers for customized, built-in-the-UK Type-45s would prefer to be able to have their ships fitted with a VLS weapons launcher that has the ability to be armed with BOTH the SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 series of missiles + their coming variants such as the SM-3 Block 2 (due in 2015)- AND Aster-30s...

It is an undeniable truism that the more varied and extensive that the available warship outfitting options are (in this case- customized, designed and built-in-the-UK warships) the larger that the potential pool of international customers for warships (such as Type-45s) will be...

Hopefully, some in the MoD will come to their senses and make sure that least 4 of the 6 Type-45 Destroyers that are currently built and/or undergoing construction are 'fully fitted out' with the weapons, sensors, ship self-defence and communications systems that the Type-45 Destroyer programme's designers intended....

Result could only be much better "floating, mobile advertisements of UK-built naval platforms" than the presently far-too-lightly-armed, negligently equipped Type-45s...

Without assertive, substantial efforts being made- in the very near term- by UK businesses and UK govt representatives to internationally market customized, UK-designed-&-built warships** that possess significant export potential, other countries that also wish to export warships- such as the US, France, Italy, etc- can be expected to try to displace the UK on international markets... and by doing so, in effect, shut down one of the most constructive and effective methods for the UK to finance its pressured defence budgets 2011- 2024 and retain workforce and industrial capabilities within the UK....
===============
===============
* with their comparatively puny range of only 60 miles and maximum altitude of about 62,000 feet, Aster-30s are not capable of covering land masses or major portions of coast lines of countries as large as Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, etc...

** such as Type-45 Destroyers and the undergoing re-design & construction, 'big deck' aircraft carriers...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ballistic-Missiles/Aster-Block-1_a001130003.aspx

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-standard-missile-naval-defense-family-updated-02919/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Land-Based-SM-3s-for-Israel-04986/

"(US) Navy... Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress", 23_06-2011:
http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/data/images/crs%20report_aegis%20bmd.pdf

*** http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-Band-Radar-05682/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-US-Navys-Dual-Band-Radars-05393/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssds-quicker-naval-response-to-cruise-missiles-04699/
---------------------------------

**** http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdu2/~edisp/baes_046052.pdf :

"...As the U.S. Navy's VLS Mk 41 missile canister design agent, BAE Systems has developed the Mk 25 Quad-Pack canister, which can vastly increase a ship's self-defense capability. The Mk 25 Quad-Pack allows the system to store and fire four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) in a canister space that normally contains a single weapon."

http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020042/vertical-launch-system?_afrLoop=492286892065000&_afrWindowMode=2&_afrWindowId=null
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=550&ct=2 :

"The MK 41 VLS is a modular, below deck missile launching system (and) is a multi-missile, multi-mission launcher, capable of launching SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, and Vertical Launch ASROC missiles..."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/MK-41-Naval-Vertical-Missile-Launch-Systems-Delivered-Supported-updated-02139/
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

11 April 2012

The problem with MEKO designs is the options to fit other weapon systems is hardly ever utilised. One area of concern for me with the MEKO design is the crowding of the masts due to the modular design. The MEKO design was also designed to offer a low to high weapon fit; for example the gun modules range from 40mm through 76mm mounts to the larger 127mm systems. This is great if you have a limited budget and want an 'entry level' warship which if the finances improve (or the threat).

The other major plus for the MEKO design was its angle at the smaller warship (<4000T); once the warship design goes above this the benefits of the modular design with its various systems are minimised by the ships larger internal volume to accommodate them.

The UK however with a higher than average defence budget partnered with a mature defence sector means the UK could afford to fit the best of everything in the warships it created. If, and it is a big if the UK government invested properly in the RN with further warship orders; there should be a minimum capability in each of the major warfare spectrums the vessels can be expected to operate in - ASuW, ASW and AAW. Then of course escorts for the CVF's especially should possibly have electronics upgraded and weapon fits expanded (e.g. radars TR cells & VLS cell numbers increased).

The Aster family of missiles have demonstrated the capability of future BMD - The French recently tested a land based missile in such a configuration. So the Standard family of missiles would not necessarily be the best solution for the UK or other Aster users.

What concerns me though with future warships designs is that there is little R&D work (i.e. investment from the government) in electronics and weapons. Where is the Harpoon replacement? Where is the next inner layer defence system - gun or missile based? Sure Sea Ceptor is underway; but this is a combination of existing technologies and is really nothing new.

There has also been under investment in torpedoes such as the ship and helicopter based Stingray and the submarine based Spearfish. Where will these sit in 5yrs?
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

11 April 2012

A significant amount said to tell us nothing.

Type 26 is now rapidly "Growing" in complexity & Cost.

Quite frankly I read peoples wish lists for the services and find it more and more depressing that we do not actually have the ablity to do the job.

I am hopeful that Hammond will step up & use his accountancy skills to say "Enough ..."

Navy, you need a cheap (^&%%) frigate. It will be constrained to £250 Million. You will be able to procure as many as you can get for £4 Billion.

Then the Navy could factor in removal of the last 10-20 % of "Technological wizardry which costs more than the rest of the ship put together", we could get sufficient numbers to provide a quantative advantages that negates the technological disadvantage.
We should stipulate a "Batch build with a freeze on design after "X" amount of time in planning. Then they really should commit, if it is wrong get it right later during lifecycle.
When I look at Queen Elizabeth class from 1914 and see the upgrades I realise a significant development could be done if required. (Leander is another example) Physical size will also be of benefit in the long term, so lets give that more consideration than initial weapons fit.
But we also need to look now and determine if we want to be in teh "Big league". This is all about "ego"...
Does it matter that Germany is not in the "Big League". It does appear to me that the nations in the "Big League" are the ones suffering most.
France, USA, Britain... whilst everyone else goes out and build factories...
Maybe we are at a point that is unpalatable to many of us but realistically we should be stepping down from the "Big League"

This vessel is another example in a long line of defence equipment projects that have/will cost the forces more important valuable equipment that is needed day to day.
Provoking thought, I would rather see the RFA fitted with Phalanx, the new MARS vessels perhaps to get the Goalkeeper of the Type 22, Cooperative engagement for the 45 along with Harpoon and Tomahawk capability.
Eurofighter to have AESA radar accelerated....
Correct RADIO equipments, and quality footwear.
Sadly instead Type 26 will grow in cost....
Degradable - UK

11 April 2012

Degradable - UK

While I understand your point I still believe that with only eight of the planned T26 having the Sonar 2087 the RN will not have sufficient ASW capability to defend it's capital ships from the growing submarine threat. I would rather have 15 C1 variant T26 than 20 odd vessels without equivalent ASW capability.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 April 2012

Understand the point you are making Graham, and though it IS valid I am not sure it is applicable anymore.

UK needs enough capacity to what ...
Put a brigade ashore in a foreign nations sovereign territory ?

Ok lets assume that is a requirement, we could use it in single instance to recover Falklands. Then we need enough escorts to support 1 carrier (Alone it will have significant capability above all air down South in 82).
So 2 Type 45 will cover that.
Then Subs, we would need 2-3 of them, Ideally.
Then Landing ship escort, 1 Type 45, and 3 "Other vessels" ALONG with phalanx/goalkeeper and Starstreak etc.
We would then still have capability of unused vessels (possibly another 2) to allow additional ability plus the Clyde boats.
Our issue would be diplomatic, in that Europe and Far east deployments would have to stay on task for extended period or be covered by allies.
That ssumes independant action. A Carrier and Surface group of 7 escorts & 2-3 Subs. That is a massive capability

In event of international action we have escorts from other nations. No I am starting to lean towards less expensive projects and better kit.
Example being 3 Para and improved defences back in 2007-8 (I think) when Danes turned up with Superior Equipment.
Now hwat forces have the Danes got int he "Big League". But at least what they send troops away with appears to have required or improved firepower over our own.
In my day I recall Kortenaer class from Netherlands. I was impressed with simple things like switches on Doors to illuminate in HQ1 which showed a doors status... Then they also had very capable general purpose weapon fit.
Degradable - UK

11 April 2012

Michael, Hertfordshire - you really don't understand the function of civil servants, do you? It doesn't include defining "the real vision for Britain and its naval capability", nor is it civil servants who decide "what they want the navy to actually do". The politicians make that call. Senior naval officers then make the decisions accordingly. As you've pointed out, we have (or may have) a mere 21 surface vessels of any significance. Since we have 100 RN officers at one star level or above, and a further 250 Captains RN, there's plenty of high-paid uniformed help to shoulder this responsibility without the distraction of having a ship to command.

If you care to search for it, you can even find the official MOD breakdown of senior posts in the Navy Command TLB. It includes only three civil servants - the Command Secretary and his/her two assistants. Do you seriously think they call the shots to the 43 senior RN and RM officers, including 14 Rear Admirals and above, with whom they work ?
Stan - York

12 April 2012

Michael, Herts.
"Certainly the navy at the moment is being placed under huge stress with little scope for maintenance when combined with continuous projection (Type 45 anyone?). ". I'm not sure where you get your figures, as a quick glance at the www suggests that Royal Navy capital ships are at the moment spending rather a small percentage of their life on Operations (as opposed to maintenance, re-fit, sea-trials, training and so on)
Ollie - Bristol, UK

12 April 2012

PART 2 to earlier posted comment, above:
-------------

And, what countries are likely to be interested in customized Type-45 Destroyer designs for their navies??

Other than S. Korea, Australia, India, (perhaps) Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore and Canada-

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/01/09/US-companies-key-to-gulf-missile-shield/UPI-30221326136605/ :

"... The Saudis are also contemplating the purchase of DDG- 51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers that could be armed with ballistic missile defense capability. These would be the most powerful vessels in the Saudi navy, whose main surface combatants are currently French destroyers and frigates.

"The U.S. Navy's 9,100-ton DDG 51s form the backbone of its BMD force and one of these vessels is always deployed in the gulf. The kingdom is reported to be considering the purchase of up to a dozen new warships worth between $20 billion-$23 billion under Naval Expansion Program II.."

- "Saudi Arabia Mulling BMD-Capable Destroyers", 13_06-2011:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6799195&c=AME&s=SEA

- "Will (US Shipyard) add Saudis as new customer?", 01_09-2011:
http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2011/09/01/news/doc4e5fb744bd633646350902.txt

Note that the above linked-to article's statement that the cost of a US Burke class Destroyer is $1 billion is not accurate. $1 billion per Burke Destroyer was the case up until about 1998.

Today, and for the last several years, Burkes each cost about $1.9- as high as as $4.1 billion USD each:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/ill-take-ddg-for-1000-alex.html

- US Congressional Research Service DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs report, 03_02-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

- US Govt Accountability Office DDG-51 Destroyer program report, January-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587883.pdf

- "US Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress", 14_03-2011:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

PAGE #2: "The (US) Navy's proposed FY2012 budget requests $1,980.7 million in procurement funding for the DDG-51 planned for procurement in FY2012. This funding, together with $48.0 million in advance procurement funding that the Navy requested for the ship in its proposed FY2011 budget, would complete the ship's total estimated procurement cost of $2,028.7 million.

- "Saudi Navy Shopping for Ships...", 01_09-2011
http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/17859/Default.aspx

- "Could Saudi Arabia be (US Shipyard's)' next big customer?", 01_09-2011:
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/31/business/could-saudi-arabia-be-bath-iron-works%E2%80%99-next-big-customer/

Note that the two above linked-to articles report that in the competition for Saudi contracts, the US's Burke class Destroyers are facing competition from UK vessels which could only be Type-45s and/or 'customized for Saudi requirements' Type-45s...

The biggest challenge for the UK's Type-45s beating US Burke class Destroyers is Burkes' relatively recently added capabilities of Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) defence...

Due to Type-45s being fitted with a weapons launcher (sylver A50 VLS) that is far too small for a warship the size of a Type-45 and one that is grievously limited in the types of weapons it can be armed with, Type-45s, as currently configured, are not capable of ABM roles...

If new-build Type-45s were fitted with another type of weapons launcher INSTEAD OF THE OUTRAGEOUSLY LIMITED IN CAPABILITIES sylver A50, such as Lockheed's MK 41 Strike Length VLS, then, once armed with SM-2 and/or SM-3 missiles, these new-build Type-45s would be ABM capable....

During the planning and design stages for the Type-45 programme, accommodations were made in the Type-45s' design so as to make sure that the highly versatile Lockheed Mk 41 VLS would be easily fittable to, and compatible with Type-45s'...

And there is nothing stopping the UK govt/MoD contracting with a UK firm possessing weapons launcher design and manufacturing experience- such as GKN and/or BAE- to design a weapons launcher that could be armed with BOTH the RN's most high-end AAW missile- the Sea Viper (aka Aster-15 and Aster-30), which isn't ABM-capable- and the ABM-capable SM-3.... (see links at end of earlier posted comment...)

So, rather than 'wait' until the irresponsibly over-economized, unrealistically-planned (for 21st century blue water duties and conflicts) Type-26 to get through its far-too restricted conceptual and functional design phases... UK PLC- along with the UK govt- ought to be aggressively marketing (to trustworthy trading partners) the few 'winner' warship designs that the UK has available- BEFORE COMPETITOR WARSHIP EXPORTING COUNTRIES IMPROVE THEIR OFFERRINGS!!
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

13 April 2012

The problem with having some warships not fitted with their full electronics and weapons fit is when the need arises for them to divert from their planned routine, you end up warships ill equipped for the threat. For example, not all T23 frigates have their full ASW fit, indeed, some have not had the refits to update fully the systems they had fitted in-build. The lack of MPA's means one of these few upgraded T23's are required to sanitise the Boomers and Hunter-Killers when the entering of leaving harbour. HMS Westminster also deployed to Libya with just 4 AAW missile in 2011.

The rationale for reduced fit-offs could be possibly justified if the UK had a substantial fleet; it does not due and will not due to a lack of investment by successive governments; indeed the three arms of the UK military have suffered cuts even to existing hardware. As a result the few warships it has need to follow the Dutch & German policy of fitting all the bells and whistles. You only have to look at the deployments in recent years where the RN has tried to cover the reduced fleet numbers by having its vessels carry out multiple missions in the one deployment just so the UK government can still check the boxes that its military is meeting it's numerous mission responsibilities.

With the T26; I would have preferred (as I have posted previously) using the T45 hull for the basic design. The production facilities are (or 'were' at the time of the original post) geared for this class and the builders were getting obviously more proficient as the ships rolled off the slips. Remember 'steel is cheap'. The cost of warships is mainly governed by the propulsion, electronics and weapons fitted.

These vessels could have been fitted with a reduced SAMPSON array and omitted the 1850M; while the weapon fit could have been improved substantially over the T23's and T22's they would have ideally replaced. Some could have received either greater ASuW / GP or ASW specific fit-offs if the vessels were built in a number of batches. Just 10? Is not enough!
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

16 April 2012

Rather than developing the Type-26 from a "as cheap and as operationally limited as possible" set of principles, the Type-26 programme should be taking lessons from the U.S.'s experiences and practises developing new, 21st-century-cable classes (and upgraded classes) of surface combatants...

Instead of designing the Type-26 to be (compared to the U.S.'s) functionally deaf, dumb and blind due to Type-26s' sensors, communications and weapons systems that are not up to the task of dealing with known and anticipated types of naval warfare threats, would it not make more sense for the U.K./U.K. firms to join the U.S.'s "Dual Band Radar", "Air and Missile Defense Radar" (AMDR) and "Ship Self Defense Systems" (SSDS) programmes??!!!!

Surely, if the U.K.wants to retain its long held positions of substantial global influence and leadership at 'the big boys table' of international decision making bodies, then the parts of the U.K's military that most project UK presence and power- such as the Royal Navy- must continue to be legitimately viable- and capable- across the spectrum of potential 'blue water' duties that are to-be expected during the coming 40-50 years....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

08 May 2012

Why not develop a T45 derivative for ASW/land attack with 2087 sonar and 96 cells buy 8 coupled with a batch2 T45 with the same number of cells and order 4 and buy off the shelf for patrol/ frigate/corvette or up gun river class for low threat patrol i.e WIGS
andy - solihull

17 June 2012

Lets stop all work on the T26 and any other design by BAE or any other UK manufacturer right now, and place an order for 20 new build Arleigh-Burke's from the US. The reason? The sad truth is, that anything we design and build in the UK is always heavily under armed ( T45!!!) and/or so expensive we can only afford a handful! We need a decent size surface warship with air to air, suface to surface including Tomahawk/Harpoon and anti submarine capability. The Burkes fit the bill and are available to order now without any drawn out development costs. We have the third largest defence budget in the world - but very little to show for it, others wth far smaller budgets have far more - why? They buy proven systems off the shelf, instead of wasting the biggest part of the budget on development costs for something that inevitably ends up being far less capable.
Paul Courtenay - UK

19 June 2012

I feel with our pioneering history with rail guns, and Turkey looking to use rail guns, and Turkey being looked at as one partner, we really should be looking at the stupidly scrappped 6.1" gun being reinstated with rail guns to follow. BAE in the states is fulyinvolved in rail guns, it's something we should not shy from.
Val - Britain

19 June 2012

Arleigh-Burke's cost near on 2 billion dollars fully complete. Only the hull is quoted for the price unlike T45's which the whole price is always quoted.
Val - Britain