The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I believe the 30M was an early 2000's update on the 30B, moving from analogue to digital (but I could be 1000% off base & am more than happy to be proved wrong - I no doubt have got my letters arse for elbow )

The change from Oerlikon to Bushmaster might well have been based on the fact that most modern 30mm equipped weapons systems (whether they be based on land craft, naval ships or aircraft) seem to predominately based on the Bushmaster. Again I'm speculating, but it may be that the barrel is lighter / is capable of accepting a higher ROF & with inter-equipment compatibility, it means that nations are spending less on training / spares, because of the commonality across the services....

SA

I had thought that the 30B, or at least some variants of it, had a crewed gun position at the mounting. The RAN's Huon-class MHC seem to use this version, and I had thought that the M, or possibly a precursor to the M, deleted the position at the mounting in favour of a control operator who could be located elsewhere within the ship. OTOH I could also completely off base with this, as it has been known to happen before...

The confusion I have surrounding the change between the guns has to do with the capabilities of the guns themselves, since the size and weight seem to be pretty comparable. I do not imagine that a difference of 10 kg would matter much for a gun on a naval mounting. For countries that already have examples of the Bushmaster in service, I could understand continuing with such a gun for some parts commonality, but it does not seem to be the case for the UK. It also seems to have been a reduction in ROF, with the Oerlikon being sufficient for use in an AA role, kitting out some ships as well as vehicles for AA, while the Bushmaster family really does not have the ability to get rounds down range at a rate I would consider necessary for AA or CIWS.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Type 4X Destroyer

I thought this was an interesting article.

Looks like the Type 26 may find even further life. As the Canadian version will be both AAW and ASW already, I think this would work quite well. The plan would also save a pot load on engineering and design costs.

 

[StobieWan]

It'd be logical and sensible so I think we can rule it out on those grounds alone I'm afraid.

However, if we did shift to a policy of running ships out after a relatively short period of service instead of flogging a dead horse for thirty years I think it'd save on refit and maintenance costs as well as giving the yards work in a predictable manner.


Replacing T45 with something on the T26 hull wouldn't be totally daft either.

 

[hauritz]

The only problem I can think of is that it might not be big enough. The USN already believes that the AB design has been pretty much maxed out. The electrical power generating capabilities alone would seem to indicate that any future destroyer would need to be in the Zumwalt size range.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

The only problem I can think of is that it might not be big enough. The USN already believes that the AB design has been pretty much maxed out. The electrical power generating capabilities alone would seem to indicate that any future destroyer would need to be in the Zumwalt size range.

It depends what the RN wants. I would suggest you can likely equip 48 MK41 VLS cells in the bow, and if you delete the mission bay, another 48 to 64 in the midships area. I would argue that would make for a fairly capable AAW vessel.

The AB is more of a generic ship, and requires more capability as such, than what the RN typically does - which seems to be specialize (AAW or ASW). This is why I argue that the mission bay may not be required on a dedicated AAW platform.

A hull extension may be in order though, for your second reason, power. At the very least they should change propulsion to IEP, this would improve on the power capacity when not running at high speed (40+12MW). But a hull extension to accommodate a second MT30 or more diesels would be useful. Or perhaps upgrade the 3MW diesels to 6MW for 40+24MW.

A hull extension would be undesirable though, as it would most likely negate any engineering/design savings and render the argument for a T26 based destroyer null.

Cheers

 

[76mmGuns]

I wonder if this is why Aust and Cda chose the Type 26- options to easily add more VLS cells, options to turn the Type 26 to a General frigate, with ASW, and AAW versions possible.

Us amateurs usually look for any open space and assume you can plug in a bunch of missile launchers in there. By eyeball, the Type 26 could have around 80 missile Mk 41 cells.

I can't wait to see what sort of collaboration results occur over the next 10 years between UK/Aust/Canada.

 

[John Fedup]

If the "3eye" T26 projects all work out more or less ok then perhaps all three navies might consider a joint new design for a large surface combatant ship that would have the necessary power for energy directed weapons along with IEP. The more knowledgeable here can weigh in on whether the T26 hull with a plug addition or a completely new hull makes more sense both economically and capability wise.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

I wonder if this is why Aust and Cda chose the Type 26- options to easily add more VLS cells, options to turn the Type 26 to a General frigate, with ASW, and AAW versions possible.

Us amateurs usually look for any open space and assume you can plug in a bunch of missile launchers in there. By eyeball, the Type 26 could have around 80 missile Mk 41 cells.

I can't wait to see what sort of collaboration results occur over the next 10 years between UK/Aust/Canada.

Realistically I think the Type 26 can accommodate 48 x MK 41 VLS cells up front and maybe 2 or 3 x 6 of the shorter ExLS launchers in the back. Doubt there is room or capacity for any more without extending the hull or deleting the mission bay. I am not seeing 80 cells, certainly not full length.

Certainly the expandability was a consideration for Canada, as mid life refits and life extensions are common place here.

 

[Systems Adict]

Type 4X Destroyer

I thought this was an interesting article.

Looks like the Type 26 may find even further life. As the Canadian version will be both AAW and ASW already, I think this would work quite well. The plan would also save a pot load on engineering and design costs.

I have to agree that it is an 'interesting' article, but as I see it, there are several drawbacks to the proposals.

T45's design is now getting close to 30 YEARS OLD !
Remember that it is based off of CNGF / Project Horizon & while the technology was in many respects a step change for the RN, the reality will be that T45 won't technically need to be replaced till the 2040's, so do we really want a design that will be 50 years old?

T45 was 'overpriced' in the opinion of the powers that be at Whitehall, (with many senior figures within the RN stating in 2005 that IF T45 had been designed & build started then, that the current T45 design wouldn't have seen the light of day !). However, UK Govt PLC is still insistent on doing things that are building in costs. Making any proposed project that is scattered across the UK & shipped to a central construction point expensive & does nothing for the 'carbon footprint' concerns that seem to be essential in the soundbites that circulate around any big construction project.

T26 is more akin to 'traditional' ship designs & while I wholeheartedly back anything that maintains shipbuilding drumbeat in the UK, costs on any future project to create T4X will need to increase as new tech, & the need to integrate systems that remove operators from the line of fire, utilising remotely controlled systems have to be added. Costs relating to manpower need to be reduced (as less people join the services / less children are born / less people in the employment pool), so autonomous systems would be key to this.

T31e & the costs / idea of having these hulls in the water in less than 4 years from now, seriously cramps the purse strings for T26. The redesign of the T26 hull to accept 80 cells for VLS is viable, but as stated, more than likely at the cost of space elsewhere in the ship, or by extending the hull. The reality of such a redesign would also affect the ships sea-keeping / speed /coverage capabilities.

All in all I would state that T4X NEEDS to be a completely new design, although elements (such as the 5 inch gun / Phalanx), would likely need to be integrated to maintain capability / continuity of equipment / training across the fleet would make sense.

SA

 

[hauritz]

I do see a possibility of the UK working closely with Australia on any AAW destroyer project regardless of whether or not this is an upgrade of the T26 or a completely new design. Australia may well end up retiring its Hobarts early in order to keep the shipbuilding industry going beyond the future frigate program which means that it might have to start thinking about their replacement sooner rather than later.

This could be an opportunity for both countries to not only collaborate on the hulls but also on weapons systems and sensors.

 

[seaspear]

With co-operation on sensors ,the R.N is using thePAAMS system and radar and the R.A.N the American SPY derivatives for AAW its hard to see which of these navies forgo those systems for commonality ,
The Hobart class are unlikely to start being replaced before the end of the Hunter program to keep the ongoing ship building program long term and are likely to have upgrades prior to this ,whether during the later build program of the Hunter class some are redesigned for additional AAW could be a possibility

 

[StingrayOZ]

2038 the AWD replacements will have steel being cut in Australia. So it is likely Australia may look at turning the T26 design into a DDG before the UK does. It may be advantageous for the UK to build a early replacement in that case and do a bit of joint development. I think the UK and AU would be quite aligned in the hull area, systems would be each preference, but they would be comparable. Australia would likely see further evolution to its AUSPAR and aegis/9LV combinations.

I think Australia sees the type 26 design evolving in its construction here, so maybe its a gradual evolution into a DDG.

The hull wouldn't have to be massively modified, more of an update, and maybe a bit more length. I think the basic engine configuration will be quite nice but could be fully IEP by that stage. Room for 80VLS would be nice, not that I think they would fit that many.

 

[spoz]

Given the direction Hunter is going in, it's much more likely that the RAN will be using CEA radars than US source kit for the next AAW ship; and, surprise, surprise, the RN is also interested in at least keeping abreast of where the CEA developments get to.

 

[76mmGuns]

I do see a possibility of the UK working closely with Australia on any AAW destroyer project regardless of whether or not this is an upgrade of the T26 or a completely new design. Australia may well end up retiring its Hobarts early in order to keep the shipbuilding industry going beyond the future frigate program which means that it might have to start thinking about their replacement sooner rather than later.

This could be an opportunity for both countries to not only collaborate on the hulls but also on weapons systems and sensors.

That's an interesting thought.

NZ might keep their ANZAC's going til 2030s. Our Hobarts will be halfway through their life. It's possible NZ could pick up some good condition full sized frigate/destroyers for a light frigate price. And all the technical and infrastructure expertise is just next door in Australia.

 

[SteveR]

The hull wouldn't have to be massively modified, more of an update, and maybe a bit more length. I think the basic engine configuration will be quite nice but could be fully IEP by that stage. Room for 80VLS would be nice, not that I think they would fit that many.

More electrical power will be required to fit emerging laser and particle weapons. Currently the Type 26 gets its propulsion electrical power from the four MTU 4000V20 diesels, but I agree that the MT30 turbine currently linked mechanically for boost speed should be changed to IEP as already implemented on the HMS Queen Elizabeth and USS Zumwalt classes.

 

[seaspear]

Hypersonic Weapon Basics – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
Future frigates won’t provide a national missile shield | The Strategist
I have attached the two articles as they seem to provide some idea of the threats an AAW destoyer would face and realistic capabilities with present missiles ,no ship borne missile has been shown to have a defence against hypersonic missiles supersonic yes.
There is difficulty tracking hypersonic missiles due to the plasma bubble created around such causing interference to detection
Defense Against Hypersonic Attack Is Becoming The Biggest Military Challenge Of The Trump Era
I would suggest that to be effective in the AAW operations it miay take more than adding more vls and the missiles in future ships

 

[vonnoobie]

Regarding the T4X with it being less beamy then the Type 45 is there any issue regarding top weight? Major noob in regard to this so just all speculation on my part but how much top weight could the Type 26 possibly safely handle?I imagine it could go up to the Type 45 but could it go beyond that? Just wondering in the British context if the Type 26 might be a bit too small for them and any upgrades to it might limit what future upgades they could do later on (ie: Anzacs, Upgraded them as about as much as humanly possible).

 

[ngatimozart]

That's an interesting thought.

NZ might keep their ANZAC's going til 2030s. Our Hobarts will be halfway through their life. It's possible NZ could pick up some good condition full sized frigate/destroyers for a light frigate price. And all the technical and infrastructure expertise is just next door in Australia.

The RNZN ANZACS will be in service post 2030. At present 2033 - 35 looks like the replacement period. The replacement project is supposed to start within the next 2 - 3 years and decisions around 2028, from memory. There are a minimum of 3 general elections between now and 2028. I would think that NZ would only consider a used frigate if it decided to acquire a third frigate in the short term as a stop gap measure. During the 1980s we acquired 2 used RN Leander class frigates and that turned out to be quite costly in the long term because they were basically goat boats.

 

[hauritz]

Hypersonic Weapon Basics – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
Future frigates won’t provide a national missile shield | The Strategist
I have attached the two articles as they seem to provide some idea of the threats an AAW destoyer would face and realistic capabilities with present missiles ,no ship borne missile has been shown to have a defence against hypersonic missiles supersonic yes.
There is difficulty tracking hypersonic missiles due to the plasma bubble created around such causing interference to detection
Defense Against Hypersonic Attack Is Becoming The Biggest Military Challenge Of The Trump Era
I would suggest that to be effective in the AAW operations it miay take more than adding more vls and the missiles in future ships

I have to wonder if there really is any defence against hypersonic weapons. A manoeuvrable, stealthy missile coming at you at Mach 5 must be near impossible to deal with. Even if you hit it the momentum would probably still carry it through to its target.

 

[seaspear]

A bit more than mach 5
3M22 Zircon - Wikipedia
The small sat solution to hypersonic weapons, explained
Since this thread is dedicated to the R.N a question might be on the topic of detecting hypersonic missile threats ,does the R.N have access to Infra red detection systems for this type of vehicle ,with the difficulty of detecting this type of missile are any of the radars presntly carried on R.N ships confirmed as able to detect them at a meaningful range