Type 26 Frigate

#1
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil...gnedForAssessmentPhaseOfNavysNextWarships.htm

I may be a bit dense here, but surely the cheaper option is to just build more of the new Destoyers the RN have spent years developing as the base for this new ship but with a different weapons/electronics fit, rather than build from the ground up.

I believe Frigates and Destroyers can both perform pretty similar roles.

I may be talking arse here, it just seems pointless to build something from scratch when surely the infrastructure is already there with the latest Destroyer Type 45's.

Just a question, not trying to undermine th eRN.
 
#2
Anyone know what happened to the Type 24 and Type 25 frigates?
 
#3
I think the Type 45 hull is or has been considered for the Type 26
Whether they actually ever get built or not is anyones guess.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
I'm not on Dii so I can't see it but what you are saying is already being considered.

From Wiki

C1 and C2 may share a common hull of around 6,000 tonnes - the Type 45 hull design has been mooted as a possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Surface_Combatant

So basically we could be looking at a Type 45 but with a different weapons and sensor fit.
 
#5
lofty_lofty said:
Anyone know what happened to the Type 24 and Type 25 frigates?
Neither ever built.
Type 24 intended to be low cost ASW and export
Type 25 intended to be a budget equivlent of Type 23
 
#6
Crunchie said:
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/News/DefenceNews/DES/ContractSignedForAssessmentPhaseOfNavysNextWarships.htm

I may be a bit dense here, but surely the cheaper option is to just build more of the new Destoyers the RN have spent years developing as the base for this new ship but with a different weapons/electronics fit, rather than build from the ground up.

I believe Frigates and Destroyers can both perform pretty similar roles.

I may be talking arse here, it just seems pointless to build something from scratch when surely the infrastructure is already there with the latest Destroyer Type 45's.

Just a question, not trying to undermine th eRN.
The Type 45 hull isn't a suitable platform for the very high-end anti-submarine warfare the RN does, the underwater noise it would generate would make it a step down from the T23.
 
#8
jagman said:
lofty_lofty said:
Anyone know what happened to the Type 24 and Type 25 frigates?
Neither ever built.
Type 24 intended to be low cost ASW and export
Type 25 intended to be a budget equivlent of Type 23
A budget equivalent of T23 would be a skiff. They were bloody cheap to build the 23s....
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
Augustus said:
jagman said:
lofty_lofty said:
Anyone know what happened to the Type 24 and Type 25 frigates?
Neither ever built.
Type 24 intended to be low cost ASW and export
Type 25 intended to be a budget equivlent of Type 23
A budget equivalent of T23 would be a skiff. They were bloody cheap to build the 23s....
Indeed, they are nicknamed Skoda class frigates for a reason.
 
#10
Ravers said:
Augustus said:
jagman said:
lofty_lofty said:
Anyone know what happened to the Type 24 and Type 25 frigates?
Neither ever built.
Type 24 intended to be low cost ASW and export
Type 25 intended to be a budget equivlent of Type 23
A budget equivalent of T23 would be a skiff. They were bloody cheap to build the 23s....
Indeed, they are nicknamed Skoda class frigates for a reason.
Ooops. My error. I think the Type 25 was meant to be a budget equivelent of the Type 22 not Type 23
 
#12
No surprise really. BVT is effectively the only ship builder left in the UK who could deal with a project on this scale.

Interesting images of the potential design for the Type 26. 2 phalanxes, which suggests we want them to be a bit more survivable than the T23s...

Also, "intended to replace the Type 22 and Type 23". Does this mean we're only getting one class of ship to replace both?

[Editted to add another question]
 
#13
P2000 said:
No surprise really. BVT is effectively the only ship builder left in the UK who could deal with a project on this scale.

Interesting images of the potential design for the Type 26. 2 phalanxes, which suggests we want them to be a bit more survivable than the T23s...
Will that not be "fitted for, but not with"?
 
#14
I would hazard three phalanx, unless they like a large blind spot over the right rear quarter
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
incendiarycutlery said:
I would hazard three phalanx, unless they like a large blind spot over the right rear quarter
They could chuck one fwd and one aft like on Fort class RFAs instead of Port and Stbd like on 42's.

Either way it doesn't really matter, because the ship will turn so the phalanx is facing the threat. The blind arcs aren't that big either way.
 
#16
Ravers said:
incendiarycutlery said:
I would hazard three phalanx, unless they like a large blind spot over the right rear quarter
They could chuck one fwd and one aft like on Fort class RFAs instead of Port and Stbd like on 42's.

Either way it doesn't really matter, because the ship will turn so the phalanx is facing the threat. The blind arcs aren't that big either way.
It's not a submarine, so just a target, anyway ;-)
 
#17
parapauk said:
Crunchie said:
http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/News/DefenceNews/DES/ContractSignedForAssessmentPhaseOfNavysNextWarships.htm

I may be a bit dense here, but surely the cheaper option is to just build more of the new Destoyers the RN have spent years developing as the base for this new ship but with a different weapons/electronics fit, rather than build from the ground up.

I believe Frigates and Destroyers can both perform pretty similar roles.

I may be talking arse here, it just seems pointless to build something from scratch when surely the infrastructure is already there with the latest Destroyer Type 45's.

Just a question, not trying to undermine th eRN.
The Type 45 hull isn't a suitable platform for the very high-end anti-submarine warfare the RN does, the underwater noise it would generate would make it a step down from the T23.
See everyday a school day
 
#18
Here's a link for BAE's Type 26 page. They've been awarded £127m over four years to " take forward the programme to develop a new generation of combat ships for the Royal Navy".

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_110225114635.html

So, hopefully in four years time we'll see some serious designs, a rough budget and decisions on when and were to start building as well as HOW MANY will be built... That's if they want to keep to the projected in service date of 2020 for the first Type 26, especially as the Type 22's will probably be decomissioned by then.

On another slightly more cynical note, the thought popped into my head that the timing of this announcement of THIS contract with BAE does seem to dovetail a bit too neatly with them not winning the FRES Scout contract. Conincdence....? Who knows.
 
#19
jagman said:
P2000 said:
No surprise really. BVT is effectively the only ship builder left in the UK who could deal with a project on this scale.

Interesting images of the potential design for the Type 26. 2 phalanxes, which suggests we want them to be a bit more survivable than the T23s...
Will that not be "fitted for, but not with"?
If you want survivable then Phalanx isn't the answer. Well, not unless you go back to 1980.

The modern crop of supersonic SSMs mean you need a very capable missile system to engage them far enough away the bits don't hit you. And swarming by mobs of enraged Persians (for instance) requires more than 20mm - navies with a budget are all over 27mm to 40mm for this role.
 
#20
Good thing we've got loads of Type 45s with Sea Viper, then.






Oh.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top