Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Type 26

BTW...

we have T23 and T42s... (obviously we now have T45s) and are planning T26s...

what happened to T24, 25, 43 and 44? Is it just a quirk of the naming convention or do they exist on paper?

They were all made up as designs, the 42 originally being an interim measure to get Seadart to sea. However they never came to throughition.

Not cynical at all ;)

Seems it is following other ship designs at the moment and having Flexible Mission Space aka big open space to rig up in any configuration for the specific need.

These needs can be met by a couple of radio sand a 6ft table GS black nastied to the floor up to a purpose build container being inserted with all kinds of gubbins in built.

Will be interesting to see Sea Ceptor. And this could be the first RN ship with designated UAV support...

What is the drive train? T45 style or old school?

It will be oldish school CODLAG but with lots of lessons learned from the 23's I believe. They are hedging there bets with new technology so the price does not risk jumping up to much. When i next talk to my dad ill ask him as he should know.
 

Reading back that does not make sense. Sorry.

I was lead to believe that the 42's were designed as a short term measure to bring the Seadart System to sea in large numbers cheaply. Design work then started on thier replacements the 43 and 44, this was then completly shelved with the experiance from the Falklands and a lack of money. The Nato destroyer concept then reared its head and this eventually turned into the British T45 and the French and Italian Horizon's.
 
I quite like the term though... 'throughition'.
 
Yes, it conjures up an image of a beautiful butterfly emerging from it's chrysalis, whereas fruition in defence procurement terms is like a potato gone to seed.
 
Yes, it conjures up an image of a beautiful butterfly emerging from it's chrysalis, whereas fruition in defence procurement terms is like a potato gone to seed.

Fitted for, not with potato guns.

A quick google shows the word is already quite widely used and recognised!!!

Mishearing or a genuine development of the English language?
 
Fitted for, not with potato guns.

A quick google shows the word is already quite widely used and recognised!!!

Mishearing or a genuine development of the English language?

I wasnt sure and googled it so thought it was the correct spelling, sorry chaps just thick as fcuk :p
 
SO

Given the withdrawal of the USN East of Panama... is there any chance orders for both 45 and 26 will be increased? Words of one syllable only please...
 
[h=3]Couple of updates in reverse order on the Type 26.
2012[/h]

Type 26 concept
(click to view full)

July 5/12: No Portsmouth work? Portsmouth’s The News reports that BAE is leaning toward building the Type 26 frigates in Scotland, which could put thousands of local shipbuilding and sub-contractor jobs at risk, once Portsmouth’s sub-contracted work on Britain’s new carriers finishes around 2014. Apparently, the Portsmouth yard would require additional investment, while the Scottish yards would not.BAE is said to be pushing for all 13 of the Type 26 frigates to be based in Portsmouth from 2020, which would boost its fleet repair and maintenance operations within the naval base.
June 11/12: No CEC. Speaking during question period in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the Royal Navy had identified Co-operative engagement Capability as a “lesser priority” during the Planning Round 12 process, and decided not to spend around GBP 500 million to implement it on their 6 Daring Class destroyers and forthcoming Type 26 frigates. Media coverage criticized the decision, and the UK MoD’s blog responded that:
“The MoD’s comprehensive assessment of CEC informed the decision made during PR12 that it was not necessary to commit to purchasing the capability at this stage. As the Defence Secretary made clear last month, the MoD budget has headroom of £8bn over the next 10 years for potential new programmes. The Armed Forces Committee will prioritise which projects to commit to when necessary, and not before.”​
The American CEC system gives fitted ships the ability to see what other CEC-equipped ships, aircraft, or land stations see, and to fire at targets the launching ship’s radars cannot see. It’s vital for wide-area anti-air defense, and for ballistic missile defense. That makes CEC more important to the Type 45 air defense destroyers, but its absence will push the Type 26 toward an international positioning as a mid-tier frigate, instead of a high-end ship. Daily Telegraph |Defence Management.

May 21/12: Turkish loss. Turkey decides that the Type 26 project doesn’t meet its requirements for the $3 billion, 6-frigate TF-2000 program. Hurriyet Daily News:
“The Defense Ministry last month sent a letter informing their British counterparts that Turkey was “no longer interested” in BAE Systems’ offer, [said] an official familiar with the tender…. “BAE has already started the [Type 26] project. It was late to join. Our needs would have increased the cost. Or we would have had to review our requirements in accordance with the British Navy, but our requirements are different. BAE had also asked for a ‘license fee.’ The partnership offer would have become a model in which Turkey was financing BAE’s project,” the source told the Daily News.”​
The question is whether the remaining bidder, Lockheed Martin, can do any better. Turkey reportedly wants to take a frigate design, add Aselsan’s Multifunctional Phased Array Radar project (CAFRAD) to Lockheed’s AN/SPY-1 to create what would essentially be a new radar, and use Havelsan’s Genesis combat system from Turkey’s FFG-7 upgrade project instead of Lockheed Martin’s Aegis. Then they want all of this equipment to work with Raytheon’s SM-3 long-range ballistic missile defense missile, assuming that the USA agrees to sell that to them. Making all of these changes is a major development contract in itself. Tying them together so they work properly, and then testing them fully, is another expensive project. Integrating them with Turkey’s ship design is the 3rd project, and could also prove to be rather expensive if required fixes from the previous projects are too far beyond initial ship specifications for space, weight, or power. Time will tell if this is another example of Turkey’s wish list being too big for its budget, if negotiations will lead to compromises concerning the radar, combat system, and/or missiles; or if Turkey will choose to back off and re-think its program, giving BAE an opening again.
May 17/12: Alba gu brath – but not shipbuilding. The Scottish National Party’s independence bid gets a setback, as procurement minister Peter Luff and the Prime Minister’s office tell union leaders that an independent Scotland won’t get any future warship contracts. Since Scotstoun, Govan and Rosyth only deal with military orders, and aren’t working on any export orders, that would be it. Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions’ regional secretary, Kenny Jordan, estimates that up to 16,000 jobs are at risk in the Scottish defense industry and its local supply chain.
This is a matter of regulation as well as preference. Even if Britain changed its mind, and wanted to outsource shipbuilding work beyond its borders, EU article 346 would force them to bid that work at least across Europe. Those Scottish jobs are currently protected, because there’s an exemption that allows strategic defense projects to be kept in-country. Leaving the country would place Scotland beyond that exemption.
A Scottish decision to buy into the Type 26 program for its own navy could create a way out of the bind, by allowing negotiated work-sharing offsets. That would still be a far smaller share of work on the Type 26, and skills decay could complicate even that plan. If there’s much delay between independence and serious ship orders, the layoffs and exodus of skilled workers could leave the Scottish shipbuilding industry struggling to execute even a reduced role. Defence Management | The Scotsman.
April 10/12: QinetiQ touts BAE’s use of its Paramarine advanced marine design software for the Type 26’s early stage design and structural development, as they work to model various configurations and estimate costs.
That may have something to do with the fact that UK MoD picked Paramarine as its chosen “stability software” some time ago, and uses it for certification. That pushed BAE to use it for the new Astute Class fast attack submarines, Type 45 air defense destroyers, and Britain’s CVF aircraft carrier programs, before they began using it for the Type 26.
 
[ignorant_landlubber]Do we not already have a form of CEC capability, in the form of Link11 and comprehensive display system?[/ignorant_landlubber]
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
CEC is/was a much wider sharing of realtime data - including raw data at times - and requires a much higher bandwidth. It also included a much enhanced level of control of platforms from a single platform. This would mean that, for example, the senior anti-air commander in a task group would control all the area AA missile assets of all the T45 destroyers in the group. It makes the whole considerably more effective.

As to export T26 (or Global Combat Ship as MOD & BAE like to call it) it's going to be a tough sell. There aren't many navies that want the capabilities we do to whom we can sell it. And those that do will have 2 variants of FREMM and various offerings from Germany, Spain and Korea to choose from.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
The navy traded hulls for CEC on the basis that CEC would make up for the shortfall. The loss of CEC, whilst not very big news in the press, is actually far more debilitating to operations than the loss of a hull or two. It will eventually stagger in over the years, but not as a combined package, the result being that it will probably cost a lot more to do than if they'd gone for the whole thing is a oner.
 
D

Deleted 3147

Guest
The navy traded hulls for CEC.... It will eventually stagger in over the years, but not as a combined package, the result being that it will probably cost a lot more to do than if they'd gone for the whole thing is a oner.

I doubt that given we've withdrawn even our Liaison Officer from the project office, we've completely moved away - such a waste for a relatively small amount of money too.
 
Hmmmmm…


So we gave up half the 45's on the promise of CEC to make them more effective, and now aren't getting it, and now T26 is not getting CEC either.

We're not very 'in' on this networked warfare business, are we?
 
Hmmmmm…


So we gave up half the 45's on the promise of CEC to make them more effective, and now aren't getting it, and now T26 is not getting CEC either.

We're not very 'in' on this networked warfare business, are we?
Lessons from fairly recent history might suggest that we do better at going down, eventually, think Sheffield and Coventry.

As landlubber now surrounded by mountains and forests, and being of nought intellect, I shall still state that the UK needs the Royal Navy and cutting the number of hulls and capability will come back to haunt us.

Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron in the first round of brains splattered against the wall please. Followed by various First Lords, Air Marshalls and Field Marshalls et al.
 

Latest Threads

Top