The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

Cheers kev

@Ian

The stern mission bay was ditched a while back (somewhen in 2012), it's been changed into a larger "mission area" in the superstructure. Basically the same thing the Type 45 does to launch RHIBs, lower them over the side with a big grabber. IIRC she can be mobile and retrieve the RHIBs.

But the "mission area" is down to be able to hold UUVs, USVs or UAVs. So in a practical aspect think storing the gear used to launch/recover Scan Eagle, that type of thing. Although I will add that I know the recent ScanEagle contract - AFAIK - doesn't involve frigates, but it's good to know the space is set aside.

The turret looks more like the Oto 127/64 than what we've seen in the past, which is good.

The ultimate kick in the balls is the strike length silos, if you look at the first picture from the front, the strike cells are the ones just in front of the superstructure. They are 8 cells long and probably two deep, they usually are, meaning a drop from 24 to 16 strike length cells.

Fuming, the best part of it has been cut from what I can see. It used to be 12 x 2, now it's 8 x 2.

CAMM production kickstarted however, need to keep the Type 23 relevant into the 2030's so glad it's finally started

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-missile-contract-sustains-500-uk-jobs

Bloomberg reports very good export interest in the Type 26

BAE Systems New Global Combat Ship Draws Export Buyer Interest - Bloomberg



Blatantly it's Brazil looking for the AAW variant, but it's REALLY interesting that 8 countries are interested in the ship.

I was hoping the 24 cells amidships might be strike length, but I assume the size is all wrong for that.

 

[RobWilliams]

The 2012 model was certain a major change from the 2011 model, but the new 2013 model appears to be more of a refinement of the 2012 model rather than a major change to the overall design concept.

Absolutely, the 2011 releases were pretty much just CGI about what the design could look like rather than what it realistically will. One of the more obvious updates during 2012 was the addition of SCOT-5, a SATCOM system, IIRC.

Looking at the three models, some of the big changes from the 2011 model and the two latest models appears to be:
* Removal of the mission bay and doors at the stern.
* Removal of the smaller hanger door for a UAV
* Enclosing the openings for the RHIB's
* Removal of the Harpoon canisters (has a Harpoon capability been deleted??)

With regards to Harpoon It's certainly not something that has been talked about on releases about the ship, which leads us either to the investment of an air launched AShM (NSM would do nicely), a VL missile which can fit in the silos (preferably LRASM) or not having the capability full stop. The latter would be ridiculous. Personally I believe we will ditch Harpoon, the current block (1C IIRC) isn't particularly modern and there isn't a drive to modernise them in any way AFAIK .

The other interesting point you made (in another post) was to do with the VLS position changes forward of the bridge between the 2012 and the 2013 models.

Looking at the 2012 model it clearly shows a total of 48 VLS tubes ahead of the bridge (24 appear to strike length), the photo of the new 2013 model (not taken high enough) it's not clear from the photo if it is the same configuration or as you also suggested, but it does appear to be a reduction in the 24 strike length to 16).

I suppose that has been offset by also having the 24 VLS tubes at the back of the funnel. I won't go into the other changes you have also mentioned such as what appears to be a much taller mast, etc.

Ah, the 24 aft of the funnel are individual dedicated canisters for CAMM. Due to their nature of being cold launched missiles it makes them very easy to locate. These aren't proper VLS, these are canisters designed for CAMM and CAMM only. The only proper VLS are those fore of the bridge.

It used to be 24 strike length, the model looks more like 16. Hopefully FFBNW space for more if that's the case. The foreward missile setup used to be 24 strike length VLS + 24 CAMM canisters, giving our frigate 48 missiles for point defence. The 48 canisters are still about.

For a potential Australian frigate, the foreward VLS space would need to be expanded.

The thing that particularly interests me (once the overall design is settled) is what will an 'Australianised' version of the T26 possibly look like?

Just my personal opinion, but I could imagine an RAN version of the T26 might have:

* The same 5" gun as on the AWD's.
* A 48 cell strike length Mk41 VLS system ahead of the bridge, same as the AWD's (is the T26 design flexible enough or capable to allow for that?). I would imagine that an RAN version would want to allow for the possible inclusion of SM-2 or SM-6, the proposed Tomahawk missiles and possibly in the future the LRASM-A from the MK41's too.
* Replacement of the RN version's 24 VLS cells behind the funnel with an 8 or 16 cell MK41 VLS for quad pack ESSM
* CEFAR and CEAMOUNT on the mast (as is being applied to the upgraded ANZAC's)
* 2 x quad pack Harpoon canisters (it appears that in the latest two models of the T26 the design doesn't appear to include Harpoon), is there space for Harpoon in the current design?

I don't know if there is space put aside for Harpoon, it's not one of the capabilities that has been talked about, so I can't really comment about the official line. But Harpoon can be designed into some reasonably compact spaces. There have been models released in the past with Harpoon and I would be REALLY surprised if that consideration hasn't been made with BAE.

BAE 5in gun should be fine, aft silos probably not compatible with Mk41. Only reason CAMM is there is because it's cold launch, but not sure what the space under it is used for so maybe?

CEAFAR & CEAMOUNT is fine, BAE in the past have teamed up with CEA and put out that the technology is compatible with the mast with a couple of mock up drawings.

The other thing is the size of the flight deck, I can't imagine that the RAN would be looking at operating CH-47's off their version (if selected for the Future Frigate), would it matter? Probably not, but would it be possible if not needed, to extend the length of the hangar to allow for 2 MH-60R's and possibly a UAV too.

With regards to UAVs, shouldn't be any trouble. The Type 26 is designed with a 'mission space' in lieu of a mission bay, with the goal being UUV/USV/UAV storage. Think things like Scan Eagle/Fire Scount.

Can't see why the design couldn't be stretched to make it possible, it probably could be done. Looking at the model, you can see where the davits are for RHIBs is forward of where the hangar is unlike on a Type 45. Depending on the internal layout, the 'mission space' is probably either side of the hangar, but if it isn't and it's further forward closer to the davits then the hangar could be huge.

One of those things which we won't properly know about until 2015.

Yes, all of the above is speculation on my part of what an RAN version might look like, but as you said 8 other nations are looking at the T26, so I suppose there must certainly be a number of different versions and configurations being created by the designers.

Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers

Should also emphasise i'm no shipwright, this is all from my perspective. The design as is isn't great for Aus requirements, but that's why we've signed agreements about collaboration on frigates. All of the RAN's requirements will be taken into account, either in tweaking the base design for things like hanger space or space for VLS or in the production of an Aus variant. We are very keen to export these ships, the modular nature of the ship has been well published, so I expect we're very keen to be as accommodating as possible in the design

 

[RobWilliams]

I was hoping the 24 cells amidships might be strike length, but I assume the size is all wrong for that.

Wouldn't be strike length, probably more tactical length. But again, it probably does depend on what the space below is being used for.

Again, if an export customer wanted it then it would be taken into consideration.

 

[1805]

Wouldn't be strike length, probably more tactical length. But again, it probably does depend on what the space below is being used for.

Again, if an export customer wanted it then it would be taken into consideration.

24 individual cells doesn't seem right for CAMM and 96 probably to much, 16 forward could mean 64 missiles quad packed? Amidships does give more scope for length, as you say dependent on how deep they go.

Great looking ship, I do like the massive flight deck. The cross-decking model does provide a lot of scope for saving for other navies. I could see Chile benefiting particularly if they adopt CAMM for their Type 23s. It future proofs the investment in older ships.

 

[RobWilliams]

24 near the funnel & 24 forward of the strike cells. 48 individual canisters rather than quad packed. Plus 16 strike cells, used to be 24 but looks like 16 on the model. I hope i'm wrong and it's still 24 though.

I love a big flight deck, plenty of usable real estate.

 

[1805]

24 near the funnel & 24 forward of the strike cells. 48 individual canisters rather than quad packed. Plus 16 strike cells, used to be 24 but looks like 16 on the model. I hope i'm wrong and it's still 24 though.

I love a big flight deck, plenty of usable real estate.

I hadn't seen the 24 forward of the strike length, that's a pity...hopefully the design can take more at a later date.

 

[RobWilliams]

D'you mean it's a pity that the CAMM cells are in front of the strike cells or that there's 48 of them?

Hopefully they are designed with the margins in place to be able to expand in the future. Later in the ship's cycle it might be argued to get rid of the canisters and put proper VLS in there and quad pack for a future CSP of somthing like that.

 

[1805]

D'you mean it's a pity that the CAMM cells are in front of the strike cells or that there's 48 of them?

Hopefully they are designed with the margins in place to be able to expand in the future. Later in the ship's cycle it might be argued to get rid of the canisters and put proper VLS in there and quad pack for a future CSP of somthing like that.

Good point, I am glad there are 48 just disappointed it means on the model there is not 24 strike cells.

As you say the modular design should make refit/changes much easier. I really would like to see the design in a number of navies. Even if it does not lead to much actual work in UK yards. I wonder whether the timing will now favour it over FREMM. We are still a long way off a ship in the water, but the general economic downturn seems to have put a squeeze on expenditure at a time that might have favoured FREMM?

 

[swerve]

...
I suppose that has been offset by also having the 24 VLS tubes at the back of the funnel....

The thing that particularly interests me (once the overall design is settled) is what will an 'Australianised' version of the T26 possibly look like?

Just my personal opinion, but I could imagine an RAN version of the T26 might have:
..
* Replacement of the RN version's 24 VLS cells behind the funnel with an 8 or 16 cell MK41 VLS for quad pack ESSM
...
Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers

24 SeaCeptor (Gawd, I hate that name!) missiles weigh about as much as 8 ESSM, & IIRC the canisters are pretty light & compact - certainly compared to Mk41. Replacing 24 of them with 16 Mk 41 holding 64 ESSM might give problems of space, & eat into top weight margins.

 

[RobWilliams]

Nah it's always been 48 CAMM canisters, just a reduction from 24 to 16 silos. Hopefully it's just a SNAFU with the model or it's addressed in due course.

Indeed, swerve has talked about it in regards to Brazil in the past. When they first put out they wanted frigates and it was out of the Type 26 & FREMM then FREMM looked like the slam dunk. However due to the way Brazilian defence procurement is and the global financial situation, the timing has been delayed. Meaning that the Type 26 seems like a more valid selection as the design is refined more and more, they get greater input on the ship's design too.

Then look at Aus/NZ, AFAIK their frigate replacement programs are far off into the future (i want to say 2030? not 100% sure) and we've been cuddling up to them about collaboration on the design.

Most of the replacement programs we are after are in the future, meaning that we can give them the time to work with us on the frigate and get the result they desire.

Caveat: i'm not saying FREMM is a bad ship

 

[Volkodav]

What I hope for the RAN is a return to the more traditional (for them) structure of about a half a dozen high end ships and another half a dozen or more smaller, less capable ones. i.e. forget the Type 26, unless it is bought in a more GP AWD configuration to supplement the current AWDs and go for something like the Venator for the low end. Not saying the Type 26 is a bad ship just that a Navy like the RAN, without organic airpower needs more AD ships the expense of which would preclude something like the Type 26 from making up numbers.

 

[1805]

What I hope for the RAN is a return to the more traditional (for them) structure of about a half a dozen high end ships and another half a dozen or more smaller, less capable ones. i.e. forget the Type 26, unless it is bought in a more GP AWD configuration to supplement the current AWDs and go for something like the Venator for the low end. Not saying the Type 26 is a bad ship just that a Navy like the RAN, without organic airpower needs more AD ships the expense of which would preclude something like the Type 26 from making up numbers.

Well they can have pretty much any fit, with either FREMM or Type 26....obviously the Type 26 will be better ;-)

That said if the RAN faced a serious air threat, it would surely also face a potential submarine threat.

 

[RobWilliams]

With CEAFAR + CEAMOUNT you're going to have a solid AD capability from a Type 26 paired with ESSM/SM-2 (side note, the space reserved for the strike length silos can fit the Mk41 not just the A70) anyway.

So it wouldn't be a case of getting one tailored for AWD work because - I believe - the standard Aus Type 26 would be very capable in itself, but I can't for the life of me think what other improvements would need to be made? Bar expanded VLS numbers, obviously.

EDIT: CGI video of the Type 26, great looking ship! An interesting bit is when it shows the mission space and both the doors are open. Can see right through the ship!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30JF4pYbTw&feature=youtu.be

HMS Argyll (T23) returns to the UK after her South Atlantic tasking, she has been replaced by HMS Richmond (T23)

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-an...0911-HMS-Argyll-Due-home#.UjBvSK1xXQ0.twitter
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-an...ember/11/130911-RN-Saint#.UjBNjEmVHsQ.twitter

The UK's First Sea Lord has (at DESI) said that corvettes do not meet UK requirements

http://www.janes.com/article/26812/royal-navy-chief-says-corvettes-do-not-meet-uk-requirements

Speaking to a Royal United Services Institute conference held in London on 9 September immediately prior to the DSEI defence exhibition, First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir George Zambellas said that "a corvette designed for policing duties just doesn't pass [the] basic test of contingent flexibility" required by the UK.

Some people have talked about the idea of us dropping a Type 26 or two for 4-6 'corvette' type ships to take up global patrol taskings. This looks like it won't happen but hopefully this cements in that we will be getting 13 frigates on a 1-for-1 basis.

 

[harryriedl]

Type 26 model updates at DESI 2013

DSEI 2013 pictures photos images video International Maritime Defence Show Naval exhibition Excel London UK defence industry military maritime security naval technology navy

Most obvious difference that i've spotted is that the aft CAMM silos which were in the same structure as the funnel has moved a smidge further aft into 4 sets of 6x1 cells rather than 1 set of 12x2 cells. Same number just different arrangement.

The mast looks really tall, like REALLY tall. Good sized flight deck emphasised by a scale model of a Chinook.

More details soo, but she looks great IMO.

I had a good look at it was fortunate to get an invite to DSEI, their were also small changes to the QE(mainly mounts for CIWS and 30mm), there are two diffrent sized VLS in bow what looked like a CAMM VLS and MK41 split 32 and 16\8 cells respectively unsure was only a quick look

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, sounds close to what I reckon there is in the pictures. 24 (4 x (6x1)) CAMM canisters and 16 (8x2) strike length silos.

IIRC BAE did a Q&A thing about their model last time an update was released, hopefully we get some better snaps of the Type 26 too.

You're a lucky bugger getting to go to DESI

 

[harryriedl]

Yeah, sounds close to what I reckon there is in the pictures. 24 (4 x (6x1)) CAMM canisters and 16 (8x2) strike length silos.

IIRC BAE did a Q&A thing about their model last time an update was released, hopefully we get some better snaps of the Type 26 too.

You're a lucky bugger getting to go to DESI

Yeah I was really lucky their was so much stuff its really quite overwhelming had a good look at most of the ships parked up and was on a KDX II, K130, a Holland OPV.

Missed both the QE talk and the 26 talk but did have an interesting conversation with RN on the long term plans post 2025 as well as the nearer term stuff.

 

[RobWilliams]

That's the best way of learning about that type of thing for sure, care to share? :

I'd love to go to an event like that, it all looks so awesome.

BTW if anyone missed it, OPSSG linked a 50+ PDF document about the QEC, how they fit into UK doctrine and how they will be used. I really really REALLY recommend it.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Leveraging_UK_Carrier_Capability.pdf

EDIT: Just realised i've been writing it wrong all the time, DSEI DSEI DSEI

 

[harryriedl]

That's the best way of learning about that type of thing for sure, care to share? :

I'd love to go to an event like that, it all looks so awesome.

BTW if anyone missed it, OPSSG linked a 50+ PDF document about the QEC, how they fit into UK doctrine and how they will be used. I really really REALLY recommend it.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Leveraging_UK_Carrier_Capability.pdf

EDIT: Just realised i've been writing it wrong all the time, DSEI DSEI DSEI

yeah sure no problem but it would be extremely lengthy to go all details of various different ships at once but what would like to know about first.

 

[RobWilliams]

Haha well now you ask, I can't think of anything!

Type 45, what's the general idea? AFAIK there aren't any public releases about updates apart from the the 4 ships getting Harpoon.

EDIT: Just did some idle stat checking

• Strike
  • FREMM - 8 Exocet + 16 MdCN
  • Type 26 - 16 weapons, unknown about Harpoon & unlikely
• Self Defence
  • FREMM - 16 Aster 15
  • Type 26 - 48 CAMM

Is there a potential argument for dropping CAMM numbers down by ~12 to get the room for the silos?

Cool to know that for every Aster a FREMM throws up, a Type 26 can throw up 3 CAMM missiles.

 

[StobieWan]

Type 45 updates?

I'd expect Sea Ceptor integration asap, as the missile is already slated to be packaged for Sylver and Mk41 - and anything that shoots Aster already has the data link capabilities. Probably tucked into silos, possibly not.

127 mm cannon? Yeah - soon - sooner we move to a single mount fleet, is the sooner we can kick all the 114 mm ammo over the side. First major refit after type 26, those mounts are going in.

Additional strike length silos? Very much depends on what Type 26 gets - those strike length silos could house a plethora of opportunities.

There must be an anti-ship missile on the horizon that we haven't see as Harpoon 1C seems *so* last decade darling...

BMD capability? Possibly - the bits are out there - the software updates for S8150 are there, Aster Block 2, ditto.

Fantasy land? I'd love to see RAM and TLAM. RAM won't happen, short of WWIII and TLAM, only if we see a shift in policy.