I am coming to the conclusion that the modern naval warfare environment is no place for human beings ... at least not those who want to live long enough to cash in their super. The US is currently accelerating various autonomous vehicle programs as are other countries. That might be the only real solution. Just build lots of expendable unmanned vessels. When they are sunk you would then at least have some idea where the weapons came from and organise a counter strike.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Maybe if such capability exists on RN ships, it might be OPSEC. So lets leave it at that.
I think we are quite a long way from that point and people have been saying that for a thousand years.
Also with hypersonic weapons, the easiest thing to do is move, they typically don't have great spacial awareness in the atmosphere. As always, you want to destroy things before they start shooting at you. In terms of detection, it isn't the unsolvable problem some would have you believe. Its often more about systems than one singular sensor solving the problem. There are off the shelf solutions today for some hypersonics. Ships can shoot out satellites in low orbits. Your not going to have an open forum discussion on what can't be done against non-deployed future weapons.
I think overall its a question of how they are connected and supported rather than completely starting from scratch. There is plenty there if unified. If the ship is made bigger, well then there is more room for more things.
I would believe the Type 26 has significant top weight margin. Particularly for radar. Its not like the AU/CA aren't putting significantly sized radars/super structures on them. Its not just about beam either, (of which there is basically a foot difference between Type 45 and Type 26 which are some of the beamest destroyer/frigate ships to be built) its about weight distribution and other design factors. Its a lot beamer than say a Ticonderoga cruiser. Infinite beam isn't awesome either, there are other considerations.
For me clearly the greatest threat to the T4X is the UK MoD budget.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Certainly recent advances in hypersonic weapons is troubling but lasers and railgun might address this problem. Perhaps HVP shells from powder guns could provide some measure of protection as per the attached link for a 5” gun. Perhaps this technology could be adapted to higher rate of fire smaller caliber guns.
The U.S. Navy Quietly Tested Mach 3 Heavy Gun Shells That Could Revolutionize Surface Warfare
Looking at the comments from other posters in this section of the thread, they have come back with wholly valid considerations regarding the dimensions & characteristics of Type 26. Beam width / length / mast height have all been key to determining how high / heavy an antenna can be, along with understanding the Coriolis effect / centrifugal force / concerns around Brinelling on rotating antennas. Sea keeping characteristics / hull form & the balance of weight throughout the ship are likely to have a greater effect than the consideration for how heavy the antenna is.
Looking practically at the T26 / T45 comparison (relating to mast constriction / shape & antenna), IMHO, I do not believe that T26 could accommodate the Sampson antenna. While composite masts can be structurally strong, the Sampson radome must tip the scales somewhere around 2 tonnes. That weight, spinning extremely high up on any warship means serious calculations on overall ship stability / beam width, etc., as well as some serious superstructure to support it.
...& as for T4X, the article from the defence journal & other very minor mentions of a proposed programme, are all that are in the public domain. The defence journal did make reference to the fact that their manipulation of images used (Type 26 & Type 45, melded together), was quite poor.
IF the industry is working on this programme, it will be a number of years before we readily see images that will bear any resemblance to the finished article, as numerous decisions have to be made by UK PLC, to decide how far they want to step away from standard hull construction (If at all), technologies to be incorporated into the vessel & most importantly, where the budget is gonna come from to design & build it.
SA
Last edited:
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
From twitter NavyLookout
That would have been my choice ... but good luck getting 5 of them for £1.25bn.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Surely that fantasy budget number has been relegated to the waste bin long ago! Too bad the same hasn’t happened to the T31 program. Just quit screwing around and add some some T26 “Lites” .
That would make sense, however we are talking about the pommy MOD and govt here so gawd knows.
It's no longer 250m per ship, the MOD realised that this was an unrealistic expectation, hence the reason the BAE Leander contender grew a lot bigger, it's now approx 350m per vessel.
Well, they've moved weapons and sensors out of the budget so it's now "build plus GFE". That will help but I suspect that starting a new production line, which may well involve building in blocks again, plus the time constraints may see that figure exceeded by a fair margin.
It may be aimed at breaking BAE's hold on the military ship building side of things but there were probably smarter ways of doing that.
Of the choices available for Type 31, Arrowhead 140 definitely looked the better bet but I'd still have thought it made more sense to just go with plan A and build 13 T26's and make some savings in spec on the 5 GP variants.
We'll see, at least one RN person I spoke with regarded T31 as possibly a positive move in that it might mean more escorts in future and it would certainly be easier to tag a follow up pair to an order at some point in the future, providing the personnel can be found to crew them.
I think they’ll end up being a carbon copy of the Anzac class projection, bought as cheap and cheerful patrol frigates then as time passes, gear added, capability upgraded until they’re at their absolute limit. The one advantage they have over the Anzacs is displacement, but hey! That means more can be added.
I’m with the majority, it makes no sense to introduce another type, another yard, more development cost etc when it will end up cheaper through life of type and more efficient, especially for sustainment, to build T26 light and play hardball with BAE.
I wonder if any has done a cost estimate of a simplified Type 26. say, just Sea Cepters- no Mk 41 VLS, Saab Giraffe package, the space behind the MM space for the 8m RHIB sealed off, opened up for the helicopter, and crane for the 8m RHIB removed. If somehow that brought the cost down to, say, 500m quid, might be worth considering instead of the type 31 (I know..aint gonna happen, but be interesting to find out, no?)
I suspect the hull is too complex and the propulsion arrangements ditto for you to shave that much off. The weapons and sensors are virtually free as they're pulled through from the Type 23 upgrades so I'm hoping someone looked at it all reasonably closely.
The issue with re-using weapons systems from 'older vessels' is that many of the systems wouldn't bolt straight on to a new hull, without first being taken back to the OEM & stripped to bits, worn parts replaced & equipment rebuilt. Costs for activities such as this can be more expensive than buying new.
The RN also have a tendency of selling on older vessels to other nations across the globe. These nations have often received vessels in the past & they're looking to obtain 'newer' vessels that can be operated without major alteration.
The other issue is the double edged sword of continuity & age. Continuity of reusing in-service equipment, reduces training & spares costs across the fleet, but means that old technology with its inaccuracies & possible design flaws can effectively limit the capability of the navy overall.
QUEEN ELIZABETH departed Portsmouth on Friday for WESTLANT19. Joined by a T26, T45 and RFA for trials off the US east coast. A SSN departed Faslane a couple of weeks ago -pretty sure is also in the picture.
Lots of embarked F-35B work ahead for RAF 617 (Marham) and 17 (Edwards) squadrons and the ITF at Pax River.
Decent report by ITV here is worth watching.
Lots of embarked F-35B work ahead for RAF 617 (Marham) and 17 (Edwards) squadrons and the ITF at Pax River.
Decent report by ITV here is worth watching.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I think you mean T23, not T26?
I take your points - but re-use of systems does seem to be core to the T26 program, with them pulling in TAS, Artisan and various other systems - kind of impressed they decided not to refurb the 4.5 inchers again to be honest.
One of my first issues with type 31 was that having worked out one method of integrating all those second hand systems into one ship, they seemed to be doing it all over again for type 31 which looked like duplication of effort.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
DSEI 2019 | Jane's 360
DSEI2019, the UK's major defence trade show, kicks off in a couple of days. Janes promising free access to their daily report.
It is strongly rumoured that the big T31 announcement will be made at the show, although I don't think there is any official confirmation of that.
DSEI2019, the UK's major defence trade show, kicks off in a couple of days. Janes promising free access to their daily report.
It is strongly rumoured that the big T31 announcement will be made at the show, although I don't think there is any official confirmation of that.