The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

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.

If you read it as "we're sweeping mines remotely so don't need to match the shock protection levels of the existing mine hunters" then it's a reasonable statement.

But it does pretty much nix the idea of being able to insert these into a shooting war because as far as I'm concerned, if the ship sinks, the crew may be at risk during that process, even if they're protected from small arms fire...

Modules wise, they're a good way to deliver some functions but there is a penalty in terms of volume and the truth is, the crew to operate them need to be familiar with the ship regular compliment and vice versa.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

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.

Why two dog-kennels? Also two [small] drop-downs in the stern (for Type-2087)?

And yet: Multiple silos port of the mid-section down-draught[?*]! Could they be used for counter-measures...?

Atleast the foremast looks sturdy: Light-weight SAMPSON may be a possibility in the future. Has main-gate been moved forward...? :jump2

* Exhaust funnels at the rear?

 

[WillS]

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.

I think the "numbers not decided" is the standard line at the moment. 1 for 1 replacement would (pleasantly) surprise me.

I note the mission bay seems to have disappeared, was that expected?

WillS.

 

[kev 99]

I think the "numbers not decided" is the standard line at the moment. 1 for 1 replacement would (pleasantly) surprise me.

I note the mission bay seems to have disappeared, was that expected?

WillS.

It's moved to the side.

 

[StobieWan]

Why two dog-kennels? Also two [small] drop-downs in the stern (for Type-2087)?

And yet: Multiple silos port of the mid-section down-draught[?*]! Could they be used for counter-measures...?

Atleast the foremast looks sturdy: Light-weight SAMPSON may be a possibility in the future. Has main-gate been moved forward...? :jump2

* Exhaust funnels at the rear?

Now you mention it, I guess the spaces could be some sort of enclosure for counter measures. Foremast looks like (and probably is) braced for radar much more substantial kit than Artisan - there'd be a big requirement to make sure the ship could tender for the Anzac replacement (although there were suggestions that the 26 would be too small for that role among other objections)


In service "after 2020" which could be interpreted as any time that suits I guess.

 

[RobWilliams]

BBC News - MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships

UK Armed Forces Commentary

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Design unveiled of Royal Navy's future warships

Latest T-26 info + updated graphics, specifically mentioning the main missile silo WILL use cruise missiles. I know it was pretty much a given, but to be actually told that it will is a big relief for me.

I'll let you chaps have a read through rather than telling you all, i've gotta read it myself first

EDIT: Got ahead of myself here, Stobie beat me to it, damn!

 

[Systems Adict]

I think the "numbers not decided" is the standard line at the moment. 1 for 1 replacement would (pleasantly) surprise me.

I note the mission bay seems to have disappeared, was that expected?

WillS.

http://www.baesystems.com/image/BAES_090238/type-26-global-combat-ship

The video clip doesn't show the second mission bay door on the other side of the ship properly. After studying the images on the BAE website, it's obvious that it would appear to be FWD of the hangar.

The image better displays the upper deck (mid-ships) where the 2nd silo is, also....

SA

 

[Anixtu]

specifically mentioning the main missile silo WILL use cruise missiles.

I don't see that mentioned in the MoD article. The BBC suggest 'such as', i.e. the VLS will be capable of launching cruise missiles, not that it is intended to procure cruise missiles for it.

 

[RobWilliams]

I don't see that mentioned in the MoD article. The BBC suggest 'such as', i.e. the VLS will be capable of launching cruise missiles, not that it is intended to procure cruise missiles for it.

Where d'you think the BBC got that from? The MOD.

After all, they're not picking up random things out of the air, they're reporting the announcement from the MOD.

Then that depends on your interpretation of "such as". It could be a suggestion as you say, but it could equally be an indication what munition type they believe it will use, say - for example - after the MOD released the design?

Either way, it's gunna have cruise missiles, it's incredibly obvious to everyone. There's a reason they've seperated CAMM from the "main missile silo" after all. Unless you believe they're gunna pack every one with Aster too?

EDIT: Then the commentator on UKArmedForcesCommentary agrees with me, that it's now definitely going to be armed with cruise missiles from these upates.

 

[Anixtu]

BBC extrapolated, same as Gabriele did, though Gabriele tends to overanalyse things and go a bit too far.

Fitting a 'cruise missile' capable VLS does not commit to buying missiles to launch from it. Just like T45 "could carry cruise missiles", you'd just need to buy the VLS and the missiles. Until I see "MoD buys Tomahawk/other to fill T45/T26 VLS" or even "MoD identifies requirement for...", any talk of land attack cruise missiles is speculation.

 

[RobWilliams]

BBC extrapolated, same as Gabriele did, though Gabriele tends to overanalyse things and go a bit too far.

Fitting a 'cruise missile' capable VLS does not commit to buying missiles to launch from it. Just like T45 "could carry cruise missiles", you'd just need to buy the VLS and the missiles. Until I see "MoD buys Tomahawk/other to fill T45/T26 VLS" or even "MoD identifies requirement for...", any talk of land attack cruise missiles is speculation.

True, but there's unreasonable speculation and then there's logical speculation.

It isn't unreasonable to assume that the Type 26 will have strike length cells. What would be the point of mounting anything else for the RN? AAW for the frigate is done by CAMM so what else could possibly be in those cells?

It boils down to A70 or Mk41, perfectly logical and reasonable speculation IMO.

The fact that the VLS are meant to be "cruise missile capable" at least gives a mild hint as to what their main armament would be.

 

[StobieWan]

BBC News - MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships

UK Armed Forces Commentary

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Design unveiled of Royal Navy's future warships

Latest T-26 info + updated graphics, specifically mentioning the main missile silo WILL use cruise missiles. I know it was pretty much a given, but to be actually told that it will is a big relief for me.

I'll let you chaps have a read through rather than telling you all, i've gotta read it myself first

EDIT: Got ahead of myself here, Stobie beat me to it, damn!

Pfft..get up early my son ? You'd have to stay up all night


On the missiles, I strongly believe 26 will come in with an option or options for some sort of land attack - but I'm not reading that as "definitely cruise missiles" - I'm thinking smaller and cheaper systems. Right now, we have very little in terms of TLAM shooters available and few missiles to go around. I'm sure the silos will accept TLAM but I suspect we'll see more in the line of SPEAR 3 or Fireshadow plus probably Vulcano from the get go.

 

[RobWilliams]

On the missiles, I strongly believe 26 will come in with an option or options for some sort of land attack - but I'm not reading that as "definitely cruise missiles" - I'm thinking smaller and cheaper systems. Right now, we have very little in terms of TLAM shooters available and few missiles to go around. I'm sure the silos will accept TLAM but I suspect we'll see more in the line of SPEAR 3 or Fireshadow plus probably Vulcano from the get go.

To be honest, i'd be the first to admit that I suffer from an extreme childish naivety sometimes

I was basing on the "capable of lanching a variety of missiles" comment + thinking "surely they can't mean anything other than cruise missiles?!".

Now it's a long wait till circa 2015 for a detailed specification, at least I think that's the date.

Personally, i'm not more interested in what they're going for ASW capability, after all, the images show the 30mm and Phalanx but can't see any Stingray tubes. Sure, they'll probably be there, but I wonder

 

[StobieWan]

To be honest, i'd be the first to admit that I suffer from an extreme childish naivety sometimes

I was basing on the "capable of lanching a variety of missiles" comment + thinking "surely they can't mean anything other than cruise missiles?!".

Now it's a long wait till circa 2015 for a detailed specification, at least I think that's the date.

Personally, i'm not more interested in what they're going for ASW capability, after all, the images show the 30mm and Phalanx but can't see any Stingray tubes. Sure, they'll probably be there, but I wonder

If you plug in A70's then you get access to a lot of stuff that won't fit in an A50. TLAM might happen - just depends on if someone in HMG wants to spend money coding type 26 for TLAM and then buy more TLAM (no point in having TLAM if you only have enough missiles to run a couple of subs)

For ASW they may be taking the route that a helicopter and USV's are the way forward or the tubes are under the water line. There's no direct mention of any antiship weapons either, so that's a few question marks for you to play with

 

[RobWilliams]

If you plug in A70's then you get access to a lot of stuff that won't fit in an A50. TLAM might happen - just depends on if someone in HMG wants to spend money coding type 26 for TLAM and then buy more TLAM (no point in having TLAM if you only have enough missiles to run a couple of subs)

For ASW they may be taking the route that a helicopter and USV's are the way forward or the tubes are under the water line. There's no direct mention of any antiship weapons either, so that's a few question marks for you to play with

I'm expecting ASuW to be lumped in with land attack, so no question mark there

Yeah, the fact that the UK would have to cough up for it gives us 3 options; Mk41 (most unlikely), A70 w/TLAM integration or A70 with MdCN.

Agreed on the ASW point, if a sub reaches a point where a Stingray from the frigate can hit it, somethings already gone pretty badly wrong.

 

[RobWilliams]

Process Begins to Equip Royal Navy’s Type 26 Frigate | Defense News | defensenews.com

Vertical missile silos will be able to carry a range of weapons, including surface-to-surface and surface-to-land missiles, and the ship will carry a medium-caliber gun.

If they come equipped with strike length VLS, then orders for cruise missiles will appear. It's one thing to have the vessel equipped to deal with a particular system if it needs too, but another ball game when the system is capable but the MOD doesn't want to pay out to use them, IMO.

I get all worked up about the T26.

Some interesting info about propulsion too.

 

[StobieWan]

Interesting link from the Warships forum about the systems architecture for Type 26, which looks like it'll be perched on a blade chassis which offers tremendous reliability and uptime.

Versatility is key for Royal Navy's new frigate | Opinion | The Engineer

 

[RobWilliams]

Can't wait for them to release the "detailed" specifications on the ship, AFAIK isn't ~2015 the date they're expected to release them?

 

[kev 99]

Excellent article to be found here on the Type 26, gives some new insights about integrated computer systems.

Versatility is key for Royal Navy's new frigate | Opinion | The Engineer

Nuts appears Stobiewan beat me to it.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Interesting link from the Warships forum about the systems architecture for Type 26, which looks like it'll be perched on a blade chassis which offers tremendous reliability and uptime.

There are pros and cons to the proposed centralised system, but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea on a warship.
Pros:

• Easy upgrades and is easily scalable. As processing power increases or increased power is desired, it is a matter of adding additional processing unit to the rack or replacing units with new technology. Likewise, the software being run is more easily upgraded to a new version. While it is easy to concentrate on the processing power of the blade servers, electrical and I/O connections are more difficult to upgrade later.
• More reliable. If you have redundant processing units (or even whole racks), utilisation can be switched instantly in the event of failure. Hopefully users won't even notice an interruption.
• Easier maintenance. At sea, a faulty unit could be disconnected and the workload redistributed and the unit replaced easily and quickly in port. The virtualized system is easily monitored for failures.
• Clients (operator consoles) can be generic or flexible, meaning the functionality of the console can change according to operational, upgrade or maintenance requirements.
• Data processing can produce lots of heat, and having all this heat produced at a single location makes it easier to manage.

Cons:

• It will be surprisingly complex to develop and implement, and it will require careful supervision and management in service. Don't think that it will be a matter of flipping a switch on/off, because with data constantly in motion and loads changing from moment to moment, it is a dynamic system that will change.
• Because it is shared system it will require careful communication and co-ordination across all users, departments and disciplines to avoid software or resource conflicts.
• It is a single point of failure. The failure not only could be physical (power and data connections, combat damage, operator error) but virtual (bugs, software clashes, operator error, security breaches) as well. If the central server goes down, you'll be left with nothing. No sensors, no weapons, no data links and probably only local communications. All situational information gathered is no longer available and can no longer be displayed.
• Do you also virtualize other control systems? What about engineering or environmental systems? Navigation? What happens if these go down as well?
• It is a single point of failure. This is such a crucial point I think it deserves a second entry.

The fact that it isn't likely to fail totally because of system redundancies, doesn't mean it can't/won't. A search will show plenty of examples of bank systems breaking down.
I would also be careful of holding banks up as a good example. You'd be surprised at how hacked together their systems are, given the amount of legacy/ancient software and processes that have to be accommodated!