At the end of the day the UK would likely be better off looking to enhance the capability of later batch Type 26s using evolving technology that isn't ready now rather than restart Type 45 production.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Aster 15 would do the inner layer role for Type 45 - it's got a slightly shorter minimum range but there's not a lot in it - and I'm not sure how many 15's (if any) the RN bought.
I suspect the Type 45's will get CAMM at some point as the missile is much cheaper and quad packs.
Yup, all that fitted for stuff and then buy another pair of OPV's to do the anti piracy and drugs stuff so the larger surface combatants can skip that bit and it's all gravy. Or tag a pair of Type 26 with an enhanced AWD fit-out to the end of the order for '26.
It was prehaps a missed opportunity that the original concepts behind the Type 42 & 22 were not merged into a single design. Hopefully by the time the Type 45s are leaving service the roles will have come together, if not in the same design at least a common hull/propulsion.
I don't agree with you on heavyweights, £2m would seem more than worth it to kill a sub, I'm not sure we would even be talking about buying new ones.
Completely agree they are not an option for aircraft, but for a USV, if weight is less of an issue they are a huge improvement over a lightweight. Additionally if you did replace the warhead with a smaller one and used the weight saving for more fuel, you would probably get a c15-20% increase in performance (speed or range) over a standard heavyweight.
I thought the more recent info on the Type 26 talked about space for c11 TEU?
Looking again at the M80 they would probably be a lot larger than necessary (something c25-30t a massive capability over a helicopter in range/payload).
I would have even thought there is the potential for a network of USV (maybe varying sizes as suggested by others, some armed, some not) to replace a TAS, becoming a mobile more flexible and responsive sensor fit. It could be easier/faster to deploy and less restrictive on the ship?
Looks like the roles of the 22 have been more or less picked up by Type 45 in the main - the CESM and flag roles are both there in terms of fit and space. That leaves ASW which the Type 45 isn't at all suited for.
Going forward, with type 26, it's a large, versatile hull with very quiet propulsion - that really could quite handily do the whole gamut of roles the Type 22 and 23 did - and if someone somewhere found the money and the people, there's nothing to stop it being adapted into an AWD variant fairly easily, by fitting out a more comprehensive radar fit.
In point of fact, the mast and many items of the Type 26 are modular and can be easily swapped out in the future so (again, money providing) they could be kept current and competitive during their lives.
Didn't think about that, that's a good point.
But it'd only be really effective with CEC IMO, not sure Artisan compares well with SAMPSON for AAW so it'd be interesting to see a T26 loaded with Sea Viper piggy-backing from a T45 radar image.
Sure, in particular circumstances they're incredibly useful. But because I was thinking more along the lines of an ASW UAV, it would be severe financial overkill on developing a drone to cope with the weight than using several Stingrays.
Not to mention that - in my opinion - Stingray seems a bit more of a GP torpedo which is more suitable to a wider range of targets (including being able to damage a submarine + force it to the surface) than the Spearfish which seems to be more of a dedicated heavy hitter for more substantial targets.
Well, the last I heard the idea of a mission bay was defunked, if you've got info to the contrary then I'd welcome it.
I was just going off the graphics (+ that the ships dimensions have shrunk a bit) and use of the grabbers, grabbers for boats AND a mission bay would be a bit overkill wouldn't it? Especially if the grabbers compromised hanger size or other functions.
Course, there is the potential for that to happen but not in the forseeable future, the tech just isn't there to justify it oveer current examples.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Ticonderoga shares the hull of the Spuance. If you look across the Channel you will see France is developing and AWD FREMM (FREDA) and has previously done the same with the Georges Leygues / Cassard while the the Dutch have the Kortenaer / Jacob van Heemskerck classes. If the type 26 is developed with the size and flexibility that appears likely then a new combat system for latter batches swinging the role of later ships to AAW should not be an issue.
Just build the varients you need when you perceive you need then rather than cancelling hulls and going for clean sheet designs. That way you can reap many of the advantages of a large build while still meeting changing strategic needs.
Type 26 will be offered with an AWD variant and there's no reason we couldn't do a FREDA and order a more capable AWD radar with some of type 26. (Money permitting!)
That's what I was thinking!
It'd certainly be a decent compliment to the T45 if people get 'too' concerned about AAW capability for a future UK CBG, or at least could be used to replace a T45 on deployment to free a Daring up for a crisis and yet still maintain the AAW capability on deployment.
Indeed, AFAIK the T26 is being offered for export as an AAW frigate too so BAE should at least have made provision for any specific systems people may wish to use.
I'd be all for the RN investing in an AAW variant, not at the expense of GP/ASW variants though.
Type 26 with SAMPSON & PAAMS-lite.Pretty good AAW,
That would float my boat - there should be a lighter and cheaper version of SAMPSON sometime in the future - or some outgrowth - the 26 is large and roomy enough to stand lofting SAMPSON as it is, so there's a good opportunity for an export model or for the RN to tack an order or two on the end if the political will and cash permit.
Fabulous quote from the Black Swan document by the way.
“Survivability. With resilience stemming from numbers, and the intent to keep the host platform outside the tactical weapon envelope of potential adversaries, cost has been reduced through adopting commercial standards where possible. If the risk to the platform from enemy action is low, then adopting commercial International Maritime Organisation conventions on subdivision and damage stability is a feasible option. ‘For a combatant, adopting The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea19 to define the safety limit would not be appropriate, unless the military value of the asset is equitable with the value and availability of a merchant ship’.20 This fits well with a philosophy of survivability through platform numbers.
The future adoption of this reduced standard permits a one-compartment damage standard, with a reduction of watertight bulkheads from around 8 to 4. This generates a significant cost saving, both in terms of hull structure and system complexity. It also reduces the amount of armour required. With the crew concentrated in the superstructure and hull under the bridge, this area can be economically armoured against small arms fire. The only other allowance for armour in the design is for protection to magazines. The relaxation of shock and other military standard requirements for machinery and other equipment will also have a significant effect on the cost of the platform. This philosophy sees a shift in emphasis from ship, to crew survivability.”
Translation "if hit, it is hoped that the flooding will put the fire out.."
“Survivability. With resilience stemming from numbers, and the intent to keep the host platform outside the tactical weapon envelope of potential adversaries, cost has been reduced through adopting commercial standards where possible. If the risk to the platform from enemy action is low, then adopting commercial International Maritime Organisation conventions on subdivision and damage stability is a feasible option. ‘For a combatant, adopting The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea19 to define the safety limit would not be appropriate, unless the military value of the asset is equitable with the value and availability of a merchant ship’.20 This fits well with a philosophy of survivability through platform numbers.
The future adoption of this reduced standard permits a one-compartment damage standard, with a reduction of watertight bulkheads from around 8 to 4. This generates a significant cost saving, both in terms of hull structure and system complexity. It also reduces the amount of armour required. With the crew concentrated in the superstructure and hull under the bridge, this area can be economically armoured against small arms fire. The only other allowance for armour in the design is for protection to magazines. The relaxation of shock and other military standard requirements for machinery and other equipment will also have a significant effect on the cost of the platform. This philosophy sees a shift in emphasis from ship, to crew survivability.”
Translation "if hit, it is hoped that the flooding will put the fire out.."
Type 26, finally, the design unveiled.
BBC News - MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships
Ominous rumbling about numbers not being decided until costs known but they look good - single shutter hangar, nice high Phalanx mount, A pair of what must be CAMM silos and a long row of what would have to be strike length silos behind that.
Nice animation to have a look at as well.
BBC News - MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships
Ominous rumbling about numbers not being decided until costs known but they look good - single shutter hangar, nice high Phalanx mount, A pair of what must be CAMM silos and a long row of what would have to be strike length silos behind that.
Nice animation to have a look at as well.
kev 99
Member
To be honest I think a lot of the assumptions for this type of vessel have been shown to be pie in the sky, the LCS programme has shown that speed of module swapping and crew number assumptions have both been very, very wrong.
I strongly suspect that the larger navies around the world are looking at LCS and having a rethink about what can be achieved with this type of vessel and what can't.
As for Type 26 design: I quite like it, looks like a handsome ship, hanger will almost certainly by single Merlin plus probably a single UAV/UAS whatever or 2 Wildcats.
CEC...fill out a half dozen cells as required and the composite track between any other Artisan 3D and SAMPSON sets could be pretty damn good.