Type 26 Frigate

I hope your wrong, for the sake of ship building (inc design and all the bits tat feed in) I hope 25 years or 30 yrs is the total intended service life.
I did mean total service life for the Class.

The T42 stagged on for 38 years but T45 production started almost a decade before which I guess would help the shipyards. However, I still can't see the T26 being used as a basis for a T45 replacement on timeline alone but defer to @Not a Boffin on this subject.

Regards,
MM
 
Number 1 - it's a great win for BAES and UK plc. A big BZ to the bid team and the HMG team supporting them. Let's hope the UK equipment suppliers pass on the economies to the next order of RN ships.

Number 2 - The T26 was always going to be the best option for a real, top-end ASW requirement, most of the rest are GP with some sonars and other tweaks. Only T26 has been designed from keel up to be vewy vewy qwiet as Elmer Fudd might say, so provided the price was right, should have been nailed on.

Number 3 - At some stage, the USN are going to realise that FFG(X) - as currently badged - needs to be a serious ASW platform. That may be incompatible with the size and price budget currently assumed. However, I very much doubt whether they'll go down an export route. Expect NAVSEA to relearn a lot of lessons and do their own. NIH.....

Number 4 - The RN can't afford to use this as a T45 replacement - although expect the siren voices to begin in about five years. There are some fairly significant design compromises in T26 to meet one set of requirements. I'd be very wary of including them in the basis of another class of ship - particularly if doing so meant we went through the cycle of forgetting how to do the early stage part of DD/FF design again.

But for now, fingers crossed it all goes well and all ends up as planned.
 
Number 1 - it's a great win for BAES and UK plc. A big BZ to the bid team and the HMG team supporting them. Let's hope the UK equipment suppliers pass on the economies to the next order of RN ships.

Number 2 - The T26 was always going to be the best option for a real, top-end ASW requirement, most of the rest are GP with some sonars and other tweaks. Only T26 has been designed from keel up to be vewy vewy qwiet as Elmer Fudd might say, so provided the price was right, should have been nailed on.

Number 3 - At some stage, the USN are going to realise that FFG(X) - as currently badged - needs to be a serious ASW platform. That may be incompatible with the size and price budget currently assumed. However, I very much doubt whether they'll go down an export route. Expect NAVSEA to relearn a lot of lessons and do their own. NIH.....

Number 4 - The RN can't afford to use this as a T45 replacement - although expect the siren voices to begin in about five years. There are some fairly significant design compromises in T26 to meet one set of requirements. I'd be very wary of including them in the basis of another class of ship - particularly if doing so meant we went through the cycle of forgetting how to do the early stage part of DD/FF design again.

But for now, fingers crossed it all goes well and all ends up as planned.
Well, the FFG(X) will be able to perform all these different roles which the T26 can't, so the design is out of question.

The U.S. Navy would like for the ship to be able to:
  • Destroy surface ships over the horizon,
  • Detect enemy submarines,
  • Defend convoy ships,
  • Defend against aliens,
  • Employ active and passive electronic warfare systems,
  • Defend against swarming small boat attacks.
 
(...) Number 3 - At some stage, the USN are going to realise that FFG(X) - as currently badged - needs to be a serious ASW platform. That may be incompatible with the size and price budget currently assumed. However, I very much doubt whether they'll go down an export route. Expect NAVSEA to relearn a lot of lessons and do their own. NIH..... (...)
To put things in perspective, the US are looking for around 20 FFG(X) frigates. In comparison, 9 T-26s for Australia and 15 for Canada amounts to 26, which is considerably more. The T-26 design has won a considerable share of the available market.

To go back to the US, they are looking at 5 different designs. Of these, 2 are based on LCS hulls, one supposedly based on a US Coast Guard ship, one is a Navantia F-100 variant, and one is a Fincantieri FREMM variant.

Of those, I believe that the F-100 and FREMM are the only credible offerings given both how the US requirements have evolved and the tight time line they are looking for. I suspect that the T-26 was not under consideration because none had been built yet and so didn't meet the "existing design" criteria. Fincantieri were fighting hard to get the T-26 excluded from the Canadian competition on that grounds, but the Canadian criteria was worded specifically to make sure the T-26 was included.

Without making a long explanation out of this, I won't be surprised if the FFG(X) program grinds to a halt and has to be restarted with a clearer idea of what the US want and how much they are willing to pay for it. With a restart, the T-26 may have a chance to be included again in order to increase the number of competitors beyond just 2. I don't see there being time for the US to design a totally new ship from scratch given how anxious they are to get ships built. They've lost too much time down the LCS blind alley to continue to dawdle.

The major problem with that however might simply be commercial. Most of the shipyards that were involved with the FFG(X) program are already tied in with a specific partner who wants to sell their own design. BAE would have to find someone to build the ships for them in the US. This wasn't a problem in Canada, because here the government is picking the design and telling the yard (Irving) to build it.
 
No, because according to your link they are looking for something much smaller and cheaper. They are also close to making a decision and it will be down to either a Damen Schelde SIGMA 10514 or a Fincantieri Abu Dhabi class corvette.
 
BAE already has a proposal for a air defence version of the T-26, as they market it as a ship that can be built to fill many roles. The first three ships for Canada will also be an air defence/command version. It is not known at this time how far the Canadian version will deviate from the "stock" BAE concept in this regards.

The question though is where such a thing would fit in the RN's plans for the fleet. It wouldn't be a replacement for the T-45, since as others have already noted the T-45 is still new and won't need replacing for some time. So the question comes down to what older ships will need replacing after the T-31s are built and what roles the replacements will be expected to fill.

24 Mk41 VLS… so anything between 24 SM-2/6 to 96 ESSM quad packed or a mix and match like say 12 SM-6 and 48 ESSM.
 
Without making a long explanation out of this, I won't be surprised if the FFG(X) program grinds to a halt and has to be restarted with a clearer idea of what the US want and how much they are willing to pay for it.
I would not disagree. What started as an "LCS with the bugs fixed" programme is heading rapidly towards a real capability-led exercise, at which point "real" ASW ought to become a priority. Which is very different from where they are now, which is a "we need hulls to hit the 355 ship (or whatever it is this week) navy" exercise.

I don't see there being time for the US to design a totally new ship from scratch given how anxious they are to get ships built. They've lost too much time down the LCS blind alley to continue to dawdle.
Oh it ain't just the LCS that's a blind alley. Zumwalt and the subsequent AB Flt III "redesign" are up there too. NAVSEA are in a very hard place to get out of. Traditionally, they did the contract design and handed it off to the shipyard for detailed and production design and then build. With Zumwalt (and LCS) they changed and put the contract design authority on the contractors, with conspicuous lack of success (not - it has to be said, all down to the contractors). Who now is left in Navsea who is qualified and experienced enough to do a design?
 
Number 1 - it's a great win for BAES and UK plc. A big BZ to the bid team and the HMG team supporting them. Let's hope the UK equipment suppliers pass on the economies to the next order of RN ships.

Number 2 - The T26 was always going to be the best option for a real, top-end ASW requirement, most of the rest are GP with some sonars and other tweaks. Only T26 has been designed from keel up to be vewy vewy qwiet as Elmer Fudd might say, so provided the price was right, should have been nailed on.
Do HMG get any direct share of the profit of Australia and Canada buying the T-26 design or is it entirely the property of BAE?
 
I'm pretty certain Damen have won the corvette order and the refit of the T22s. I'd also say, having surveyed both T22s, that the Romanian Navy are lovely people but a long way from being able to operate or maintain a T26 or anything of similar complexity.
 
Do HMG get any direct share of the profit of Australia and Canada buying the T-26 design or is it entirely the property of BAE?
Yes. More importantly, such sales may well significantly ease the cost of integrating new systems and capabilities on our own T26. The reason we finally managed to get Brimstone and SS integrated onto Typhoon was largely off the back of Saudi Arabian money.

...given we might want 16 wokkas why can.t we suggest a reciprocal buy of T26 to the US?
We can certainly suggest it. However, it'll be a waste of breath!

Regards,
MM
 
I'm pretty certain Damen have won the corvette order and the refit of the T22s. I'd also say, having surveyed both T22s, that the Romanian Navy are lovely people but a long way from being able to operate or maintain a T26 or anything of similar complexity.
Not sure it's signed and delivered yet. The Fincantieri/Vard team are still in the running I believe.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top