Type 26 and Astute plans under way

HAVE YOUR SAY

The Type 23 is a superb vessel. I mean really superb.

It has excellent handling, the crew like being stationed aboard it and it's weapons fit is comprehensive enough to deal with most threats on it's own.

The mix of the gun, Harpoon SSM, and vertically launched Sea Wolf System makes this vessel absolutely superb.

Now one hopes that the Type 26 will not have the cost cutting exercise of the Type 45 (missing Harpoon and CIWS).
james - GB

Great news. Now lets have the required number of these ships on time, on budget and properly fitted out from day one. These frigates should be fitted with a 155mm gun, with the type 45's being retrofitted later, and the best CIWS available. As for other anti-air, surface and sub-surface and land attack weapons; these must also be available too. Lets get it right!!!
Norman - UK

the new combat type 26,,,sounds great fantastic, brilliant, [well thats the good bits out of the way] now the bad bits.
1,how many [start with say 20.then 15,then perhaps if we are lucky 10- poss 08,
2, how much. start with millions.then billions.

3, how late, start with say, 2 years and end up say 5 years.late.
4, armaments, 8inch-6inch-4inch-2inch , machine gun. missiles. start with the best. end up with the cheapest.........
now i know that seems not realy fair . a bit rude you might think.
but i am only going on their past record, and belive me , this has in part been a disaster..and ordinary people with think just the same. these new ships could and very well should be . the best in the world and protectd by the best. money can buy..and if poss [british] i hope and pray we dont have this conversation in years to come , after the goverment has ruined it...please let us hope this new goverment keeps their promise and supports this project through to the very end. thank you...
criss of herts - london

Lets start taking bets on how many will actually be built: six? ten? Zero? If any are built they'll either cost more than the T45 or be so toothless as to be worthless; lets face it the UK is now a busted flush where maritime power is concerned. Still at least we have plenty of fancy titled shore billets for the RN's vast "fleet" of shipless senior officers; that's the main thing!
Bob M - Surrey UK

More cuts. Are the Royal Navy really going to get 17 of these ships to replace on a one for one basis? I sadly doubt it. I believe part of a future order should be of a much cheaper variant that can be ordered in greater numbers to carry out the usual flying the flag " gunboat diplomacy " role, anti piracy, etc. Seems such a waste to have a 200 million ship multi capable as the Duke class used for disaster relief. The primary first rate assets should be used to support the future Carrier Battle Group and the current Amphibious Task group. In an ideal world they would all be fully equipped but I think government have lost sight of the fact you need quantity as well as quality.

Good point by James on T45. It does not need TLAM but should have CIWS and SSM. Ex T42 Phalanx mounts used maybe?
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

TYPE-26 FUNDING 'DECISION' OUGHT TO BE INTERPRETED SKEPTICALLY

Labour's announced 'decision'- after 13-years of stalling & refusals- to fund the functional-design phase of a programme to replace the RN's highly vulnerable-to-airborne-threats, aged Type-22 and rapidly aging Type-23 Frigates with new 'multi-mission'/'multi-role' warships is so close to an election, and occurs against a many months-long backdrop of intense news-media criticism of Labour's Defence-administration incompetencies- that only the most easily fooled and/or willfully ignorant would trust Labour's 'announcement' to be bona fide...

On the face of it, unfortunately, it stinks of transparent, opportunistic hypocrisy: a 'short term' public relations exercise... intended primarily for UK voter manipulation... as opposed to a doing what's right for the country and its future Defence and Defence/high-tech industrial base needs...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100325/wmstext/100325m0002.htm#10032542000388

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Britains-Future-Frigates-06268/#more-6268

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4554683&c=POL&s=TOP

Shouldn't the Strategic Defence Review be completed before such a govt funding decision/announcement is made so that the capabilities' parameters of new warships are based upon projected types of duties and roles of the Royal Navy and the UK generally during the next 2-3 decades?

Delineated in design warship capabilities' parameters have a direct role in defining a proposed class of warships' displacement size, the type & scope of weapons, communications, sensors fitted and, possibly most importantly: the (planned class of) warships' energy-generating capacity...

Where does this 'decision' fit in terms of a long-term strategic plan for the Royal Navy, the UK armed forces and the country's domestic and international interests and foreseen roles OVER THE NEXT 2-3 DECADES?"

It appears that this 'decision' is more of an off-the-cuff Labour govt announcement (pre-election 'campaigning')- occurring after 13-years in power, during which govt decisions to fund programme(s) to replace the RN's known-to-be-highly-vulnerable-to-airborne-threats Type-22's & Type-23's were continually deferred and stalled- in opposition to senior MoD officials' advice...

There is a real danger that the just announced programme will be subjected to the same sort of unrealistic, govt-imposed cost restrictions- and continual interference during the design/build-phase as the planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers & Type-45 Destroyers...

IE: govt interference before AND after a design for the Type-26 has been identified & agreed to- with govt downgrading the new warships' potential level, quality & scope of armaments as well as their defensive and communications equipment and power plants... to the point that the new warships end up as functionally-neutered, highly vulnerable 'make-work-projects'..

The U.S. pays and expects to pay about 2.2 billion dollars for each of its 'multi-mission'/'multi-role', Burke class Destroyers produced 2009-2015...

Burkes are capable of competently conducting duties in theatres where they may have to prosecute actions/defend against threats in all 4 main warfare spheres: sea-surface; sub-surface; air & Naval Surface Fire Support (land).

Based upon other countries' experiences, it seems highly unlikely that the UK will be able to produce adequate 'multi-mission'/'multi-role' Frigates/warships for the comparatively paltry sums that are being projected by Secretary Ainsworth/the govt as intended: 400-500 million pounds...

REGARDING THE UK's PLANNED 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS:

The US's newest 'big deck' aircraft carriers- the 'Gerald Ford' class- are projected by the US Govt Accountability Office as each costing upwards of 14 billion dollars- without aircraft- to build and commission...

The Gerald Ford class carriers are projected to start entering service 2015-2016...

It seems highly contrary to logic- and basic honesty- for the UK govt to be continually telling the public that their programme to produce not 1 but 2 brand new, capable 'big deck' aircraft carriers will cost less than 1/2 of what the US pays for 1 of its 'big deck' carriers....

DEFENCE PROCUREMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS: WEEK OF MARCH 29-2010:

Secretary Ainsworth's statements in the Commons- and repeated in several Defence journals/media outlets- indicated that the Labour govt was intending to make several more (no doubt 'big' & intended to manipulate voters) Defence procurement project announcements this coming week...

If this does indeed occur- why doesn't one of the UK's investigative news outlets put a few questions to relevant people about the grievous, enormously dangerous under-arming and under-equipping of the Type-45 Destroyers and planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers, and as part of this perhaps ask:

"how will- or 'will'- whatever party/parties form govt after the next election put in place procedures to make sure that the completing sea trials/construction Type-45 Destroyers' and the planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers' extensive armament, sensors, communications and defensive equipment deficiencies are rectified?"

"how will- or 'will'- whatever party/parties form govt after the next election put in place procedures to make sure that the Type-45 Destroyers' and planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers' outrageous deficiencies won't be mirrored in the Type-22 and Type-23 replacements class of warships?"

It may be known by readers of these pages already, but without intending to be redundant: the anti air warfare systems fitted to the Type-45's produced so far have suffered failures... leaving these vessels less capable than the approaching 3-decade-old Type-42 Destroyers they are intended to replace:

"Royal Navy destroyers at sea with faulty weapons systems" -

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Royal-Navy-destroyers-at-sea.5889279.jp

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/agenda/Navy-destroyers-face-further-worries.5990942.jp -

"... The navy is planning to put old weapons onto its new destroyers as it struggles to get them ready, The News can reveal..."

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Navy39s-newest-warships.6074730.jp

"... They also toured the vast spaces of the ship, which was built with empty compartments so new weapons and equipment can be added over time.

"Currently the navy is facing a major weapons problem, with the expensive Sea Viper missile system still not working..."

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Government-39misled-public39-on-ship.6123969.jp

Although welcome news, last Friday's 'announcement' by the Labour govt to fund the functional planning/design phase of the Type-22 & Type-23 replacement programmes warrants being responded to with extreme caution and vigilance: grandiose 'commitments'* that are made by suitor's (Labour govt) wanting another (the voter) to ignore the suitor's previous grievous failings- and to resume a failed relationship- are seldom more than "empty commitments", not legitimately 'bought into' by the suitor- and quickly tossed aside after the person on the other side of the relationship has acceded to the suitor....

(* especially those that are not accompanied by EXPLICITLY DEFINED long-term objectives)



Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Danielle, lets face if the Danish Adbsolon Class with 16 Harpoons, a superior close in weapons support, better range of sensors(than T45), flex rear for adaptible operations can build 2 of them at a fraction of the cost that BAE systems can(and others like BAE), it the attitude/greed that is poor. We can do it, but BAE systems and others like them get away with robbery. In the past the Royal Navy rewarded poor execution of planning and poor thinking with summary execution of admirals. Those who make these make these decisions do not need attitudes like Danielle but need to do and get the best at cost levels that show it knows its business without fluffy thinking. So far t45 is toothless wonder, Chinese now have ballistic antiship missiles. Every one pats everyoone on the head well done boys -rubbbish.
Mark - UK

Hi Mark.
You dont seem to have understood my post? I'm confused? What attitude do I have? I WANT the armed forces to have modern capable equipment in adequate numbers. Your post seems to suggest that I am supporting the Type 45, when I was not as its not properly equipped?????
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

Taking the BAe images release recently as indicative of where the MOD is going with the Type 26 Combat Ship, I wonder:

1. What form will the SAM system take. I like the VL Seawolf II system but by the time these vessels are ready another evolution in anti-air missile systems will be required.

2. The only weapon system grade radar system fitted is a BAE Artisan 3D radar. Nice, but a SAMPSON radar would have been a better fit. Costly? Yes? The number of TR cells could easily be reduced, and economies of scale would be reached to a certain degree considering the Type-45 utilises this system too. This would allow modification of the ships for expanded area defence duties if money or situations dictate in the life of the ship.

Given the above rationalisation then the following is also in the same vein..

3. Hull form. Since BAE have the facilities in place with the Type-45, logically a ship class building on this would be very cost effective. The larger internal volume would also be beneficial for future upgrades.

3. Missile Silo. The big question Yank Mk-41 or Frenchy A50/70 and of course, how many? This would depend on the mission envelope but the Mk-41 or variant would appear to be the leading contender considering the range of missiles it currently accepts or is projected to support - Including LACM's! 32 is a nice number to start with, and if a LA mission focus is envisioned, then space exists to go to a 64/80 configuration.

4. Large Calibre Gun. A naval version of the AS-90 with extended range ammunition to 80km+ would be a great. A pity a second (B )mount isn't supported on the Type-45 hull. Building more than 17 (hell 26 sounds nice!) would compensate for this and provide a quality in numbers, something politicians seem to not realise...

5. CIWS/ILMS? Depends on the main SAM fitted. The Goalkeeper is a nice system, even if it is a thru deck system (for it's better reloading mechanism). RAM is ok, but on a SEA RAM mount 11 rounds is just not enough. This system would be located where the 1850M would have been fitted.

6. The DS30B is sufficient for smaller calibre purposes, but if using the Type-45 hull, I would go for 4 mounts with the second pair abaft the ESM mast.

7. RHIB facilities in the stern, for a larger boat. Keep the Davits port and starboard too for standard types.

8. Torpedo launching facilities. Helicopters are nice, but with an ASW mission, these are a must. With a Mk-41, hell, lets throw in a ASROC or British rip-off for a more rapid stand-off capability. The Type 23 magazine launching system would suffice.

9. Aviation Facilities. Large Flight deck, hanger for either a EH101 or 2 wildcats with torpedo, Sea Skua, 50cal mounts et al. UAVs could also be embarked if using one wildcat...

10. Bow sonar, and towed array as standard.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN