Type 26 Frigate

quadrapiper

Clanker
Looking at the RN website, it'll be interesting to see how the Type 26s fare with a smaller crew than the Type 23 (as designed - let alone in reality!) despite being some 1,500 tons bigger. If nothing else, that means fewer bodies to do upper deck maintenance and the boring manpower intensive evolutions. It also means less ability to keep going once the automation stops playing the game properly.
Imagine the happy balance is the (more) generalist training approach of the RN/RCN with manning and berthing to match various evolutions, without being obliged to ship an AHLS3 Zborowski for every definable task.

Did the USN approach evolve to deal with wartime intakes of rubes, and a desire for speed of training?
 

Mattb

LE
I'd have thought that the sensible process goes:
  1. Work out how (a) many crew you need to deal with a C-802-based hole in the side, which has injured 10% of them and started several fires, plus (b) how many you need to fight the ship whilst it's going on.
  2. Work out (c) how many jobs need doing on normal running, and from that a proportion of what branches are needed
  3. Divide (a) + (b) by (c) and then split in to watches. Train them as generally as possible, then have them work a little more specifically in practice.
 

clanky

War Hero
That's effectively what happens.. Put simply manning levels are based on maintenance load divided by number of man hours required. One one ship I was the number of PMS tasks increased post build so the manning levels had to be slightly uplifted eventually. Of course there is a lot more to the problems of lean manning.
 

bob231

War Hero
That and the seeming inability of Abbey Wood to correctly estimate the maintenance hours required, ability to Warfare to manage their non-core jobs, the impact of churn, compassionate, "this course only runs once a year"...
 
Imagine the happy balance is the (more) generalist training approach of the RN/RCN with manning and berthing to match various evolutions, without being obliged to ship an AHLS3 Zborowski for every definable task.

Did the USN approach evolve to deal with wartime intakes of rubes, and a desire for speed of training?
USN? you mean like the big uplift in manning on their LCS once they realised they were not grey funnel cruise liners and automation don't clean the passageways?
 
9C33E845-3F77-407D-936D-842C3530AA1A.jpeg
82BC649F-D173-4A0A-8C2C-5A461B6EACE1.jpeg
99405930-2AA7-44EB-ADED-877AD7104F3D.jpeg
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Sadly can’t read the full article as appears to be behind a pay wall.
Odd, works for me, try through this tweet


But the jist is, the Australian designed CEFAR is very very heavy, and uses much, much more power than other radars so they need to bulk her up to compensate
 
Odd, works for me, try through this tweet


But the jist is, the Australian designed CEFAR is very very heavy, and uses much, much more power than other radars so they need to bulk her up to compensate
Yep. Also like the intimation that picking T26, instead of an established design with ships in the water, was part of the problem. Neatly ignoring the fact that those established designs would have needed to be changed to incorporate all the stuff that Australia wants including the radar system. And starting from 6-7000 tonnes (FREMM) and 7000 tonnes (F500 (modified F100) they would struggle to do so.
 
Looks like she's getting bigger (well theAussie ones anyway)

And here's the essential problem.
The winning bid deviated from the base UK design because it was required to include the Australian developed CEA phased array radar, the American Aegis combat system and an Australian developed combat tactical interface by SAAB. (...)

Defence industry sources said incorporating the radar, which is regarded as world leading, was proving problematic because of its weight and power consumption.

Unlike conventional radars, the data processing by the CEAFAR radar is done within the mast, making it very top-heavy. It also uses more power than standard radars.

One industry source said the frigate's weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.
If I recall correctly, the T-26 is the biggest frigate the Australians looked at. As pointed out by rampant, the Australian designed radar sounds like the main culprit.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And here's the essential problem.


If I recall correctly, the T-26 is the biggest frigate the Australians looked at. As pointed out by rampant, the Australian designed radar sounds like the main culprit.
It's likely that the modification will draw on then feed back into Project Castlemaine (Type 4X Destroyer), so there is a potentially good outcome for the RN (though I still think this is a bad idea from an industry perspective)
 
Are they building her from the top down?
No they're not. Broadly speaking, the individual sections are completed as the major installations contained within become available.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
On the plus side, a lengthened T26 will make a fine basis for a T45 replacement. Add room for a nice big silo farm forward of the bridge.
 
On the plus side, a lengthened T26 will make a fine basis for a T45 replacement. Add room for a nice big silo farm forward of the bridge.
But loose the ship design continuation expertise and end up with the same problems we had with Astute and T45 in the future!

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top