'The Type 26 will usher in the age of the drones for the Royal Navy'

HAVE YOUR SAY

21 August 2012

Were not BAE plc working on a Barrow based design 155 mm? That would use a proven design and create more UK jobs than BAE Inc's 127 mm gun.

155 mm is a Nato standard too.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

21 August 2012

@Martin

Unfortunately, the 155 TMF development was killed in 2010/11, despite achieving some success in 2009.

Not clear what caused the abandon of the programme, since some good solutions to the challenges of operating separated shell+charges "land" ammunition in naval systems had been found.

Possibly, complications emerged that made it too expensive to go ahead.
Germany had tried to navalize the 155/52 gun as well, they too failed and went Oto Melara 127/64.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

21 August 2012

I hope we follow Germany and go for the Oto Melara 127/74. From all accounts this is the gun that the RN want,and along with the 'Vulcano' ammunition it fires will be a step change from 'Kryton'.
We must buy what the user wants,and not just buy to create UK jobs,nice as it would be. The 'Oto' fits the bill nicely.
michael - notts

21 August 2012

Thank you Gabriele

Is there any word on costs per ship? I pray that the MoD are not ripped off by British industry yet again.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

21 August 2012

I am going to drop the debate standard a little here & profess that this new T26 design is infinitely more cool than the La Fayette design...

Her lines are sleeker and she looks like she could glide through the water with finesse.
Laskovar - UK

21 August 2012

Hopefully these ships will be equipped with the CVS401 Perseus missile.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

21 August 2012

@Daniele

Cost is a delicate and complex subject. The Royal Navy is trying to stick to an unitary cost of around 350 million. The detailed design phase about to begin will be crucial to ensure that target can be met.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

22 August 2012

Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

I think I remember rate of fire being one of the issues. The 4.5 and the 5.0 with their naval ammunition etc can put out a good rate of fire, something about the mount, barrel and calibre size caused problems with achieving any meaningful rate of fire... I will look it up for you.

If the Navy can stick to £350 million by absolving costs in the implementation of technology into the Type 23 (Artisan, SeaCeptor, etc) then that would be good. 3 Type 26 for 1 Type 45 might give us a good baseline to flesh out the fleet again or at least bargain on more MHCP based on a good design build.

GB the Perseus missile sounds very complex and very expensive. While it is in theory a good system I don't like the point defence beating submunitions it carries. This will be highly expensive to implement and simply going for 2-3 large, skimming supersonic missiles would give you the same effect with more flexibility due to being more missiles.

Something that needs to be held firmly in mind is the case of "numbers having a quality of their own". The T-34 was a good tank and many would argue not as good as the Panther... However because it was good, more reliable and cheaper to produce it was ultimately going to always beat the Panther because in war you don't end up 1 on 1....
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

22 August 2012

CVS401 will be expensive but if it becomes a workable weapon system can we afford not to equip our warships with such a weapon? Regards the Panther T34 comparaison, given all factors (rushed development, limited numbers, kill rates, quality of crews, complexity) Id rather have a armoured force of 100 Panthers than a 1000 T34's.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

22 August 2012

Perseus does sound like a potent missile system, although the MBDA claim of it being the 'most advanced missile known to man' seems a little extravagant, especially since the projected in service date is 2030 & who knows what will be available then...

Brahmos (India/Russia) is already deployed on land/naval and can reach Mach 3 with a hypersonic version in development.
Laskovar - UK

22 August 2012

GB - Kingdom of Fife

On the T34 vs Panther argument we will have to agree to disagree. 100 vs 1000 is a difficult game to play.

With CVS401 it is obviously got the potential to be very capable however I do feel that without our current budget we need to be considering the reality of our situation and that we cannot buy the best of everything and maintain the critical mass required to have an effective war machine!
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

22 August 2012

Panther/T34 debate is always an interesting one. May I suggest reading "Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis Soviet(Russian) Study of War" by
Anders Frankson and Niklas Zetterling. Given all the available information, I will stick with a 100 Panthers (including the German leadership and crews)as it enjoyed a kill ratio of 20 to 1 over the Soviet T34 and KV1. CVS401 may only end up an expensive paper project/pipe dream, but then so might the BAE designed T26.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

22 August 2012

One further point. Panzer-Regiment Bäke January 1944. A mix 80 Panthers/Tigers destroyed over 260 Soviet tanks in 5 days for the loss of only 4 panzers. Maybe not the benchmark for armoured operations on the eastern front, but an example of the overwheaming superioty of the Panther and Tiger over the T34.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

22 August 2012

@Anthony

Yes, i did not mention it, but due to the separate launch charge and shell (land-style) used by the 155 TMF, the gun's feedring would only hold half of the current ready rounds a MK8 enjoys, and the reloading would take longer.
Among other issues, that would reduce the rate of fire from over 20 to around 12 at best.

This might have had its weight in the decision making. But there might be more about it: commonality with the Army's equipment and greater lethality would, in my opinion still justify the system, even with reduced ammo capacity and rate of fire.
There was likely something else not working as hoped, in addition.
Gabriele - Piacenza, Italy

22 August 2012

Panthers & Kursk...

200 Panthers assigned. Gear on Tracks and mines, along with faulty engines and fires diminished the number of available units to less than 64 I believe after the first day.
They may have been available for recovery as the Germans were advancing.
But certainly they were not able to be recovered when counter attacks recovered ground subsequently and more had to be destroyed to stop them falling into Russian hands.

What does this have to do with Type 26. A Quantative advantage brings its own quality. But quality has to exist as well, hence T34 was able to exploit greater mobility, numerical advantage and the relative weakness of the Panther from the side. Coupled with increased skill of the Soviet tankers as Stalin and his henchmen realised the mistakes and T34 became a winner.
Lets hope Government learn from history. Points
A quality not top line, but good is enough
Ease of use and non reliance on commercial contractor due to complexity
Quantity
Competitive pricing
Extensible platform.
Degradable - UK

23 August 2012

Still a long, thin, monohull design, it appears. RN still going for form over function one imagines, but since when has looking 'cool' and 'sleek', as described above, been an important feature of a warship? To make 'the enemy' green with envy, perhaps?

I submit this shows these ships are not really for fighting, but for posing, as these ships will spend the greatest proportion of their time tied to something solid. Otherwise a shorter, broader or multi-hull design, with the superior seaholding and fighting platform capabilities these forms offer, would have been adopted.
Muddler - UK

23 August 2012

I thought the trials of the AS90 modified Mk8 went well (prior to been cut in the 2010 SDSR). Producing the naval mount which could use the same ammunition as the BA systems would provide some economies of scale, while providing an improvement in surface engagements.

Nothing against the Oto Melara offering, but I would prefer the AS90 offering.

As I mentioned in the other T26 article going around, the present design looks more like the Oto Melara 127/64 than anything else.

With the Perseus vs Harpoon and others, one has to consider the UK has not joined the USA with replacement development projects. As such the MBDA offering probably reflects a european based solution will succeed the Harpoon (the UK doesn't have the latest rounds anyway).

Expect the UK to remove systems it would like to deploy to keep unit costs down. More than 13 replacements for the T23's is required for the operational requirements, perhaps in two or more batches - The RN could get the hulls it needs while the industry get the orders it needs to keep people employed.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

23 August 2012

Muddler - UK,
The long thin mono hull form has served the RN extremely well since its inception. In fact the UK has historicly built some of the best sea keeping vessels in existance and may I say at the expense of 'looking cool'

The T26 hull appears to be very similar to the T23,which is outstanding particularly in the ASW mode.
As for building multi hulls,that is a path we have been down and decided against,please look up the facts on the RV Triton,now in Aussie hands.

If the US LCS programme is anything to go by then the UK made the right decision in keeping clear of multi hulls. We do sometimes get it right you know.
michael - notts

23 August 2012

Quality or Quantity? Both have there advantages. The key is finding the right balance. Given our track record on warship design over the past 40 years, we seem to have missed this balance on several occasions. The key tests are affordability and capability, will the BAE T26 be able to meet these tests? we live in hope, but sadly previous experience shows thats about all we have is hope.

Regards Panther, no one is disputing that its deployemnt at Kursk July 1943 was too early (for technical/mechanical faults and a lack of crew training) . The Wehmarcht only declared the Panther operational ready in March 1944, but despite this (only 40 Panthers were operational on a daily basis during Kursk out of 200 delivered)those Panthers managed to destroy over half of the 600 kills scored by 48th Panzer Corps during that battle.

The German crewed Panther by March 1944 was the right balance between quality and quantity (over 500 built n 2 years). At this time the Soviets were losing 120 armoured vehicles a day (mostly to direct tank fire)while the Germans were losing 20 (mostly to indirect artillery fire) on the Eastern Front. Given all the facts 1 German crewed Panther was worth 10 Soviet crewed T34.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

23 August 2012

Love the Panther, T34 debate, the Great Patriotic War being a particular area of interest to me.

Both camps raise valid points. 1st SS panzer Corps at Kursk had better men, no question. But the T34 was not only good, it was numerous, could be produced quickly, where's Panther could not, and numbers always tell in the end. The Germans would frequently win the local tactical battle against the inferior tactics of the soviets, but would lose anyway because they would be outflanked so the feront would fold anyway.

Too few assets, linked with Hitlers daft no withdrawl policy.

Comparison today, too few assets, UK government grandstanding while cutting HM forces and expecting less assets to maintain the commitments.

By comparison with today and Frigates, I want hull numbers over gold plated quality. I hope T26 will be good, but not so good it costs ridiculous amounts and we get ripped off by UKplc yet again.
Daniel Mandelli - Guildford

23 August 2012

Correction. Over 5000 (not 500) Panther built between 1943 and 1945.

Panzer General Hasso von Manteuffel said after WW2 that if Germany had 1000 Panthers available for Operation Barbarossa then the Soviet Union would have lost the war in 1941!
GB - Kingdom of Fife

23 August 2012

Interesting GB.
I find the Panther to have been my favoured Tank from an early age. But I guess I suffered from the propoganda that surrounded its initial deployment. It had to be seen to be effective. Most of its effective combat was in defence, as mobility was always an achilles heal.
I think we will find that the numbers you quote do not add up. Mk IV with 75MM turret was very capable of destroying T34. At Kursk greater than 800 MKIV were involved. These capable, units will have had input to Soviet losses, and I suspect will have gained the majority of share. They were cheaper to produce, had almost as effective armour (Not mantle) they were more mobile, easier to maintain and less thirsty.

T34, Mkiv and Sherman were the strategic tank decisions of respective armies. All had superior (in some areas) team mates , but they formed a reliable, cost effective and capable platform on which to build an armoured force core. They shared similarity in ease and cheap to build, capable of being modified (Sherman turret only just), reasonable performance and reliable.
Will Type 26 be designed with these goals in mind. I would hope so, but I fear some may want a Panther rather than a MKIV
Degradable - UK

23 August 2012

It definitely sounds like articles on historic weapons and battles would get some appreciation on here!
JS - Editor - DefenceManagement.com

23 August 2012

All figures quoted are from "Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis Soviet(Russian) Study of War" . At Kursk only the GD division of 48th Panzer Corps employed the Panther. Other Panzer Corps (including the SS Panzer Corps)mainly employed the Pzkw3 and 4 along with a limited number of Tigers. The large numbers of Soviet tank losses during Op Citadel is down to superior German leadership and training. If the Germans had employed a large number of working Panthers they may have been able to achieve a limited victory which may have delayed Soviet offensive operations in the Summer of 1943. After Stalingrad German defeat was inevitable (the Panther was not a wonder weapon which would change the course of the war by 1943), just a question of how long Germany delay its defeat, 1945 or 1946?
GB - Kingdom of Fife

23 August 2012

I know its getting boring, but my final point. During the battle of Kursk there was a T34 on T34 incident. The Germans during the battle of Kharkov in March 1943 the 2nd SS Panzer Gren Division caputured 20 or so T34 in working order. A seperate German T34 company was created in this division. During Kursk this German T34 company engaged a Soviet force of 50 or so T34. The outcome was that the Germans suffered no losses, while all the Soviet T34's were knocked out(source Zitadelle 1943 by Mark Healy). This underlines the superioty of German leadership and crews over the Soviets. I stand by my comment one German crewed Panther was worth 10 Soviet crewed T34.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

23 August 2012

Editor
I am interested to use the historical reference for discussion relating to design concepts and decisions being played out today. I am not sure historical topics are best placed here. I also used the Hood Bell topic and the tragic loss of that vessel to highlight Government and department decisions at the time not to perform upgrades and refits.
Degradable - UK

23 August 2012

GB I would not be to hasty to Quote Healy. His counting of units was always a little debatable.
Also as is mentioned many times with this book, why is it only Germans get tanks totalled listed as losses, whereas the Russians get any disabled or totalled vehicle as a loss. The end result of the battle was the Germans did not have enough Men or Armour to succeed in the South, and in the North they faced huge Counter attacks.
Finally your point about the T34 versus T34 shows in your own words that superior training of the personnel returned the same result as using a "superior" tank.. So T34 has it... :-)
Degradable - UK

23 August 2012

Anyway,
back to the T26. I agree that whilst dedicated warships are a must, there is a call from numerous smaller vessels especially for littoral areas. BAE managed to build 3 Khareef Class Corvettes & provide design/training for the crew for £400m. Just an idea, but to fill out the fleet a little, would it not be beneficial to have many smaller vessels, with the backup punch of a T26/T45/Astute if required?...

That way we get more vessels/presence around the world as a nation at an affordable cost...
Laskovar - UK

24 August 2012

The T34 has it! After the T34 on T34 incident, Soviet Pow's revealed that they had been instructed never fire on another Soviet tank regardless of the battlefield situation. They obeyed these instructions to the letter and simply let the German T34's destroy them one by one. So be not as clear cut as one may think.

All weapons historical, present and future are a balance between want can be achieved and at what price. The T45 failed, 6 instead of 12 ships, fitted for but not with weapons, CEC or no CEC. So we have ended up with 6 very expensive ships with a limited capability and zero export potential.

The T26 must achieve its military and commercial targets regarding capability and affordability, plus win several export orders. I am sure BAE will do its utmost to undermine these targets in the pursuit of short term profitibility on the backs of the UK tax payers.

We must expose the T26 programme to competition from Europe and Asia, if the RN is to get combat effective warships in the numbers taht are required.
GB - Kingdom of Fife

26 August 2012

Laskovar - UK

This is indeed something I was trying to highlight with the T34 vs Panther comment.

Ultimately numbers tell, if you cannot afford to make everything in your military (and you never will be able to) a tier 1 fighter then why not have a core tier 1 fighting group and have the rest tier 2/3.

The tier 2/3 will be capable of handling the standard deployments, of doing peace support deployments, of doing peace time operations and in the case of war of freeing up the critical tier 1 units for the "big fights"

This allows your tier 1 to focus purely on war fighting during times of war. During peace time they focus on high intensity operations OR train for war fighting.
Anthony - Bristol, United kingdom

28 August 2012

The last word on the T-34 or Panther should go to Deputy Commander of Red Army Armoured Forces. On 30 August he said to Stalin "on the whole the T-34 is powerless against the Panther". Well if the Red Army didnt rate the T-34 against the Panther who are we to argue about it?
mikecml - Essex

29 August 2012

If Gabriele is quoting the MoD as saying the cost estimate is 350mn per unit then you can guarantee it will be nearer 400-450mn and if they build less than 13 then expect 500mn per unit.

Ironically they would be better planning for 17-18 units as that is more likely to keep unit costs lower.
Graham - High Wycombe

04 September 2012

mikecml - Essex

Quote attributed to Stalin, quantity has a quality all of its own.
Rob - Telford

21 May 2013

The UK MoD should start thinking outside the box, for new cutting edge Hulls that are available now, but not necessarily from the West. We need greater economy, and greater manouverability besides more effective fire power
Mike Hansen - SeaMagic-FastCraft (UK) Ltd