Type 4X destroyer?

Mr._Average

Old-Salt
Interesting article on potential plans for a future AD destroyer to replace the Type 45s. Apparently to be based on the Type 26 frigate design, which, to me, is a bit strange, as the T26s are that bit smaller than the T45s.

Of course, it may just be Bae flying a kite and angling to keep their Scottish facilities going but it's an interesting discussion as the T45s will need replacing and now is a reasonable time to start thinking about it.

 
Type XXXX - will they be named after Australian cities / States?
The Tribal class for the 21st century.
No, they'll be named after sweary words to make them sound aggressive (except for HMS Shit, which sounds a bit ummm ...).
 
Apparently to be based on the Type 26 frigate design, which, to me, is a bit strange, as the T26s are that bit smaller than the T45s.
Since the terms frigate and destroyer apparently now mean ASW vessel and AA vessel and both are the size of a small cruiser I don't think ideas of size have any real relevance today.
 

Mr._Average

Old-Salt
Since the terms frigate and destroyer apparently now mean ASW vessel and AA vessel and both are the size of a small cruiser I don't think ideas of size have any real relevance today.
I'm sure you're right, and it is most definitely not my area, and, as a layman, I'd sort of correlated size to the amount / height of radar kit you can mount and the number / variety of VLS cannisters you can support.

But, then again, a tall mast for a 'rotating antenna' Sampson radar set may not to be needed with a future AESA fit.
 
Given that 6 x T45 replaced 14 x T42, I'd imagine that we'd only end up with a couple of T4X anyway with one in extended readiness.

Regards,
MM
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
They'll need to be solar, or revolutionary, wind powered as they will still be in service when the oil runs out.
 
Type XXXX - will they be named after Australian cities / States?
The Tribal class for the 21st century.
Perhaps the Paul Hogan Class might be more appropriate?
 
Given that 6 x T45 replaced 14 x T42, I'd imagine that we'd only end up with a couple of T4X anyway with one in extended readiness.

Regards,
MM
Cynic! Sadly, I reckon you're probably correct.
 
With my professional head on, if they go down the route of a T26 variant at the moment it will make designing and delivering the training solution a lot easier to work out; the 'training gap' would effectively be the AAW element only. That would appeal to Collingwood and Sultan, who could run common career courses for each Branch incorporating both platforms.
 
Interesting article on potential plans for a future AD destroyer to replace the Type 45s. Apparently to be based on the Type 26 frigate design, which, to me, is a bit strange, as the T26s are that bit smaller than the T45s.

Of course, it may just be Bae flying a kite and angling to keep their Scottish facilities going but it's an interesting discussion as the T45s will need replacing and now is a reasonable time to start thinking about it.


There’s been a thought for some time that the ‘Batch 3’ T26 would be an AAW variant to replace T45. The very slow build drumbeat certainly allows a parallel build from the 2030 timeframe. They are much the same size and weight, and T45 is very much an orphan design.
 
Whatever the next AAW ship ends up being, one would hope that it is not based on T26.

Half the nausea in designing that ship resulted from the atrophying of ship design skills in the interval between T23 and T45, then to T26.

The "hullform" is just a shape. Developing that shape tends to cost <£5M, depending on the number of CFD analyses and model tests you end up doing. T26 hullform is optimised around one driving parameter, which is unlikely to be as relevant for an AAW ship.

You still have to produce the structural design, which will change depending on the weight distribution throughout the ship, which depends on the compartmentation and systems layouts. That's where you spend a lot of money, because the plate and section dimensions are necessarily different, as are the bulkhead positions, main machinery plant and other primary systems. All of which need detailed Class approval and then production drawings.

If you don't go through that exercise regularly, the people who know how to do it tend to retire / leave. It's not the sort of thing that you can just write in a book or a work instruction.
 
Whatever the next AAW ship ends up being, one would hope that it is not based on T26.

Half the nausea in designing that ship resulted from the atrophying of ship design skills in the interval between T23 and T45, then to T26.

The "hullform" is just a shape. Developing that shape tends to cost <£5M, depending on the number of CFD analyses and model tests you end up doing. T26 hullform is optimised around one driving parameter, which is unlikely to be as relevant for an AAW ship.

You still have to produce the structural design, which will change depending on the weight distribution throughout the ship, which depends on the compartmentation and systems layouts. That's where you spend a lot of money, because the plate and section dimensions are necessarily different, as are the bulkhead positions, main machinery plant and other primary systems. All of which need detailed Class approval and then production drawings.

If you don't go through that exercise regularly, the people who know how to do it tend to retire / leave. It's not the sort of thing that you can just write in a book or a work instruction.

All valid points but.....

There is an AAW variant of T26 on the drawing boards that some else is paying for with very capable radars.
T26 machinery is a very conservative design, unlike the too clever cluster that was T45s propulsion.

Bean counters will note, and a fingers burnt by T45 Admiralty will too, that an AAW T26 might not be as all smiting as a bespoke AAW clean paper design, but it would be fairly low risk, quick to service and quite functional.

Current baseline Weapons fit of 48 Sea Ceptor (or even better The OTH ER version) and 24 Mk 41 VLS cells will provide a quick entry to a TLAM/BMD capable (SM-3) AAW ship.
 
Whatever the next AAW ship ends up being, one would hope that it is not based on T26.

Half the nausea in designing that ship resulted from the atrophying of ship design skills in the interval between T23 and T45, then to T26.

The "hullform" is just a shape. Developing that shape tends to cost <£5M, depending on the number of CFD analyses and model tests you end up doing. T26 hullform is optimised around one driving parameter, which is unlikely to be as relevant for an AAW ship.

You still have to produce the structural design, which will change depending on the weight distribution throughout the ship, which depends on the compartmentation and systems layouts. That's where you spend a lot of money, because the plate and section dimensions are necessarily different, as are the bulkhead positions, main machinery plant and other primary systems. All of which need detailed Class approval and then production drawings.

If you don't go through that exercise regularly, the people who know how to do it tend to retire / leave. It's not the sort of thing that you can just write in a book or a work instruction.
I've put forward before now my solution to the above.

Rolling roll out.

We should now just look at the T45 and make any changes we need. Minor and we call it T45, batch II. or T45.1. Major and call it T46 or something, HMS E class.

We should be looking at a new AD boat hitting the brine every 5 years, if you factor in a 30 year life span. sell off the oldest/most useless boat and/or scrap it. Have a fleet of 6 (or whatever) with one being stripped and one being fitted out at the same time.

As it stands at the moment if we lose a T45, heaven forbid, for whatever reason we have a might hole in the fleet.

At leas with a rolling roll out an older ship could be kept for a few more years to cover the gap.

Also we could be experimental, if an idea doesn't work at least we haven't applied to the class or we could introduce a mod just for one or two ships and have it within 5 years. ie ice protection or a 155mm gun :D
 
All valid points but.....

There is an AAW variant of T26 on the drawing boards that some else is paying for with very capable radars.
T26 machinery is a very conservative design, unlike the too clever cluster that was T45s propulsion.

Bean counters will note, and a fingers burnt by T45 Admiralty will too, that an AAW T26 might not be as all smiting as a bespoke AAW clean paper design, but it would be fairly low risk and quite functional.

Current baseline Weapons fit of 48 Sea Ceptor (or even better The OTH ER version) and 24 Mk 41 VLS cells will provide a quick entry to a BMD capable (SM-3) AAW ship.
An AAW T26 on the "drawing boards" now, (2019 - 2025, say) is unlikely to be much use when needed to replace T45 (2035-2039). Those very capable radars and weapons systems will be 20+ years old by the time the FoC enters service. For context, that's a bit like an FSC on original procurement schedule entering service in 2010 with GWS26.

While people may think the T26 propulsion system is conservative, there are certain aspects of it that are driven by its role (and perceived cost) and may yet prove problematic - and that's before we get to some of the more interesting certification aspects of the platform.
 
An AAW T26 on the "drawing boards" now, (2019 - 2025, say) is unlikely to be much use when needed to replace T45 (2035-2039). Those very capable radars and weapons systems will be 20+ years old by the time the FoC enters service. For context, that's a bit like an FSC on original procurement schedule entering service in 2010 with GWS26.

While people may think the T26 propulsion system is conservative, there are certain aspects of it that are driven by its role (and perceived cost) and may yet prove problematic - and that's before we get to some of the more interesting certification aspects of the platform.

I don't honestly think T45 is going to last it’s full 40 years.
All the hopes and dreams of it gaining TLAM/SM3 seem to have gone away.
We seem to have just shrugged and said ‘let’s see what the French do, if anything with ASTER’ - and we (or much anyone else) seem to be showing no love for buying more of that system.
Another issue with its constantly cursed and now orphan (RR have now deleted the WR-21) propulsion May well prove ‘will no one rid me of this accursed ship’ terminal.

There’s plenty of headroom in the T26 programme to consider putting extra ‘AAW’ hulls in the programme in the not far future. A faster drumbeat and extra hulls of a common basic design will provide efficiencies and significant cost savings.

An ISD of 2035? So @ 2030 to order. A 2025 design point isn’t that far out, and much of the baseline works already done.

I’m sure there may be issues with T26, but, and this is a very important but, we now have 3 countries finest marine architect and engineering minds to the design and implementation grindstone - and not carrying 100% of the risk and cost our own shoulders.


Lowest risk will be the absolute decider on T45’s replacement.
 
Last edited:
I don't honestly think T45 is going to last it’s full 40 years.
All the hopes and dreams of it gaining TLAM/SM3 seem to have gone away.
We seem to have just shrugged and said ‘let’s see what the French do, if anything with ASTER’ - and we (or much anyone else) seem to be showing no love for buying more of that system.
Possibly because money has been a little tight over the last ten years or so?

Another issue with its constantly cursed and now orphan (RR have now deleted the WR-21) propulsion May well prove ‘will no one rid me of this accursed ship’ terminal.
Except that it's not the Great White Turbine that is the principal issue - and while RR understandably don't offer the module any longer, the basic gas generator should remain supportable. Napier should ensure that the remaining issues are fixed or mitigated.

There’s plenty of headroom in the T26 programme to consider putting extra ‘AAW’ hulls in the programme in the not far future. A faster drumbeat and extra hulls of a common basic design will provide efficiencies and significant cost savings.
Sadly not. Two things. Firstly see comment on no money above. Secondly Govan will struggle to glue any more ships together in addition to it's current T26 workload. As noted elsewhere, there's limited capacity to build anywhere else in UK, even if there was any money.

I’m sure there may be issues with T26, but, and this is a very important but, we now have 3 countries finest marine architect and engineering minds to the design and implementation grindstone - and not carrying 100% of the risk and cost our own shoulders.
If only the colonials didn't have the UK recruitment agencies trying to get the UK pool of design staff to go and work for them, thereby reducing the number of bodies available in UK.
 

Latest Threads

Top