T26 in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

T26

Author	Comment
Sunk at Narvik		#21	[-]
Posts: 3053 Mar 6 12 10:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Those antenna platforms each side of the hanger..yes noticed those and thought "OMG its a diesel!" Handsome looking frigate though, if a little continental.
	Remove this ad
Davierj1		#22	[-]
Posts: 49 Mar 7 12 1:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks Anthony. Shows my limited knowledge of ship design!! I'd though the funnels were where the split masts were aft! Doh!
Pred.lastrefugeofthe...		#23	[-]
Posts: 11 Mar 7 12 12:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The "antenna platforms" aft of the main funnel have exhausts as well for the diesels I think. The aft CAMM VLS is hidden between them unless the configuration changed again. Flinging a could launched missile up between those antennas with expensive gear does not sound like a brilliant idea. The step from deck to bridge forward has something to do with accomodating 24 strike length VLS cells in a 5,500 ton ship.
eldritch		#24	[-]
Posts: 237 Mar 7 12 1:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Pred wrote: The "antenna platforms" aft of the main funnel have exhausts as well for the diesels I think. The aft CAMM VLS is hidden between them unless the configuration changed again. Flinging a could launched missile up between those antennas with expensive gear does not sound like a brilliant idea. The step from deck to bridge forward has something to do with accomodating 24 strike length VLS cells in a 5,500 ton ship. Please show us when the configuration for T26 included VLS silo's aft. Agreed it is not a brilliant idea and that is why they are NOT there. I really don't know how you interpret the images given,there are plainly two lots of silo's forward one for CAMM (I hate sea sceptor) and one strike length missiles. You seem to be the only one that can see anything like this aft. Apart from the fact that you do not put diesel exhausts vented through antgenna bases.
MSR		#25	[-]
Posts: 3801 Mar 7 12 2:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Meeware wrote: I wonder if the fully enclosed hull/superstructure now in evidence provides for a mechanically stiffer hull girder, and the stepping up for the CIWs distributed the stresses forward so avoiding the cracking that's been a perennial issue from the 42s onwards (it's not just us, apparently the Burkes are even more prone to it). It did surprise me when the 23s reverted to a conventional flush deck, especially given their purported design emphasis on low observables. I'd be very interested if a board member more versed in the marine architecture issues at play were to outline the key considerations. I'm also intrigued by those "outriggers" aft for (I am assuming) the small calibre self defense guns. Not a bad idea in principle, and unlikely to be at all a problem in docking, but that sort of feature would potentially cause quite a change in the airflow over the flight deck. I wonder how mature as a design feature it is, and whether it's been tested for various wind states. From a functional point of view one would be tempted to use features like that to hose some sort of RAS gear, but then again, the flight deck is typically in action at the same time as RAS is going on to shift dry stores, so perhaps that's not the best idea going. See MSR, there's always more to waffle about here! I humbly bow before the master of unsubstantiated prattle. Re: T23 flush decks. If memory serves, in the T23's original incarnation as a towed array tug and pit stop for Merlin, it was armed only with medium and light calibre weaponry and any point defence missiles were likely to have been rail/box launched. The VLS silo was part of the post-Falklands remodelling and would thus explain why they were not able to incorporate that structure into a continuous upper deck. I thought the "outriggers" for the small calibre guns a good feature, but if you're looking for flight deck turbulence problems, surely the chunky bases of those twin aft masts are a bigger culprit? The T45s have similar outriggers for the phalanx (albeit very small and much further forward). The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
MSR		#26	[-]
Posts: 3801 Mar 7 12 2:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Pred wrote: The step from deck to bridge forward has something to do with accomodating 24 strike length VLS cells in a 5,500 ton ship. Yes, but you could achieve that using a separate "box" as seen on the T23s and T45s without blending it in. I suspect Meeware is on to something with his remarks on the hull girder and cracking. The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
Nauticus27		#27	[-]
Posts: 982 Mar 7 12 11:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	...not forgetting that early impressions of the T45 showed a "blended" configuration too: Also note the fore and aft Phalanx. The latest layout for the T26 looks good to me but if it follows a similar evolution we could end up back with a flat deck-and-box and waist mounted Phalanx! Let's hope not. Re the flat deck VLS box mounting - I wonder if part of the reason is that it's just simpler and cheaper, and so results from the inevitable cost saving review?
DCSGR1		#28	[-]
Posts: 208 Mar 8 12 11:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	pymes75 wrote: istobie wrote: Radar on the 26 is Artisan so yes, technically AESA/MFR - can't see any point in sticking Aster block 2 in there however - you'd need a decent VSR with the reach to cue it. There were some comments on additional missile silos behind the bridge/CIC area - not sure if that's accurate however but there were suggestions that some short silos for surface to surface missiles similar to Griffin etc were possible - no idea if that's true. Mainly I'm encouraged by the silo arrangement which has the CAMM silos separated out from the rest - may mean they're porting the launch tubes from Type 23 wholesale - suits me, 48 CAMM plus what looks like 32 Sylver - hopefully A70..encouraging. I'd prefer Mk 41 VLS - nice wide range of existing weapons, including the surface launched version of the cruise missiles already in RN use! Mk41 has a wide range of weapons it can fit if you buy American missiles, which generally the UK doesn't. In fact, it looks like the only candidate in RN service in the forseeable future which is certified for a Mk41 is Tomahawk (in theory, but all the RN's are tube launched). I wouldn't pick the UK will be able to afford too many more of these than have been fired in previous years either, so I wouldn't bet on getting 13 Type 26's lugging 32 Tomahawks each - that would be four times the UK's current Tomahawk holdings. In RN service, it's very likely those 'strike length' missile tubes will be be surface to surface missiles only, as the UK is probably not going to fit Aster into them (too expensive and that's what SeaCeptor is for). My bet would be they'll be whatever Thales needs to launch its new SSM, plus maybe something like a tube launched version of a Firescout and possibly an ASROC type missile, though the RN doesn't tend to favour these. Are there any VLS ASM's in NATO? I thought Harpoon, Exocet and Teseo are all canister launched. If so, the Type 26 seems to have no anti-ship missiles. The Type 26 is supposed to have export potential, so it might be possible to reconfigure the design of the weapons space very easily to have different weapons fits, like Mk41 and a deck penetrating CIWS of some flavour. The mast may be capable of holding a much bigger and better radar than Artisan for the same reason. Don't know where missile directors would go though... The mission deck would have been a waste of space in the ASW types if fitting the towed array meant you could no longer use the stern door, so maybe the new stern can take the towed array and the superstucture is nice and open for easy change of roles. Don't know about the MCM gear though....
Pred.lastrefugeofthe...		#29	[-]
Posts: 11 Mar 8 12 2:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	eldritch, it is not visible in those images, agreed. This place is not particularly user friendly as to attaching my images. The official announcement on the final configuration going through next development milestone is now overdue so we should have details and better images very soon. One can can but hope.
hulahoop7		#30	[-]
Posts: 1820 Mar 8 12 3:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	GMLRS?
	Remove this ad
Nauticus27		#31	[-]
Posts: 982 Mar 21 12 11:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Mildly interesting written answer (Hansard, 20 March): Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to incorporate the sea viper missile system and the SAMPSON multi-function air tracking radar into the Type 26 global combat ships. [100499] Peter Luff [holding answer 19 March 2012]:The T26 GCS programme is in its assessment phase and no decisions about which equipments will be fitted to the ships will be finalised until the completion of this phase when the main investment decision takes place. This is currently scheduled for the middle of the decade. Now we shouldn't read too much into that except that the formulation you might expect would be to reference the later decision but state something along the lines that current planning assumptions are that the ships will be fitted with Artisan and Sea Ceptor. The above seems unnecessarily unforthcoming even by PQ standards and follows buying extra time by first giving a holding answer. Just wondering whether if there is a spare shipset or two available whether Sampson and Sea Viper might just be fitted to a couple of the T26s as a relatively cheap way of regaining some of the capability of the abandoned T45s 7 and 8. I know, probably reading far too much into it.
Thorvicson		#32	[-]
Posts: 302 Mar 22 12 12:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would hazard a guess that they are keeping the options open so to speak in case a potntial export customer or partner is looking for an Air Defence Destroyer variant rather than General purpose or ASW frigate. If competive designs cater for PAAMAS or AEGIS systems then they may want to keep the option open for Sampson & Sea Viper especially if the Type 45's start to shine as they go into front-line service.
istobie		#33	[-]
Posts: 2772 Mar 23 12 3:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It'd be nice but you could read it as "we've no idea if we're even building any..." if you felt like it. PAAMS would be a huge leap over Artisan 3D in cost as well capability sadly. Can't see it - they've got this neat upgrade/update program going on by pulling gear through Type 23, installing a newer system would be ruinously expensive.
Rich C		#34	[-]
Posts: 474 Mar 23 12 5:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just wondering whether if there is a spare shipset or two available And the chances of that are.... ? Not the sort of thing you leave lying around.
istobie		#35	[-]
Posts: 2772 Mar 23 12 6:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rich C wrote: Just wondering whether if there is a spare shipset or two available And the chances of that are.... ? Not the sort of thing you leave lying around. Technically, there were two - one for Longbow and one for the training establishment. The Longbow rig was always intended to be fitted to the last in class of the Darings and the other is fitted to a training establishment.
Anthony58	Type 26: The future backbone of the Royal Navy	#36	[-]
Posts: 4102 Apr 6 12 12:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	05 April 2012 Brian Johnson, UK business development director at BAE Systems, answers questions about the Type 26 Global Combat Ship Can you provide some detail on the size and makeup of the team involved, their experience levels and the overall working approach to the design process? The team working on the Type 26 programme is currently around 250 strong. The team is centred in Bristol but a large design team is also based at BAE Systems' facility at Scotstoun in Glasgow. The team is a genuine 'rainbow' team comprising of BAE Systems, Ministry of Defence and Royal Navy employees. Additionally, 18 other companies who are our partners and suppliers are involved, all working together to get the best expertise from across the UK industrial base to drive this vital programme. The team must be aware of the huge level of interest and speculation about the design in the defence community. How does this affect the approach to the design work? The most important thing now for the naval enterprise in the UK is to design a ship that can be built to cost and time whilst satisfying the needs of the Royal Navy. Designing to budget is at the heart of the team ethos. The contract is almost at the halfway stage. Can you broadly describe the progress to date and say if it is on schedule to produce the completed Type 26 design in early 2014? The first half of the Assessment Phase of the Type 26 programme has been to refine and agree a design that is not only affordable, but also satisfies the capability needs of the customer. This phase is now nearing completion. The team will then shift its focus on to more detailed design, taking it to the development and manufacture phase, which on current plans and subject to approvals, is expected to begin in 2014. The ship has been billed by the First Sea Lord as "the future backbone of the Royal Navy", can you comment on the importance of building versatility into the design process? By the 2030s around half of the 'operational Navy' will be serving on a Type 26 ship, with a number of the vessels in service well beyond the middle of the century so the ship really will be the future backbone of the Royal Navy. Experience has taught us that the key to a platform being relevant for over half a century is to build in future flexibility from the beginning. There are many aspects of the design that take this into account. What kind of unique capability is being called for by the Type 26 by the Royal Navy? Have features such as the UAV 'dog kennel' and a separate mission bay been retained in the design to date? Are there any similar or new unique features being included or considered? The UK is seeking to procure warfighting surface combatants that are flexible in role and adaptable to meet the future demands of the maritime environment. Whilst final design decisions have yet to be made, and will not be made until the main investment decision point scheduled for the middle of the decade, to meet the requirements of adaptability, options to incorporate a Flexible Mission Space that can house a range of manned or unmanned vehicles or capability modules are being considered. The first variant of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship will have an Anti Submarine Warfare capability emphasis, whilst being more adaptable than the capability currently provided by the Type 23 frigates. The systems features that allow this, particularly the acoustic issues, are key to the design. Sea Ceptor aside, have decisions on weaponry been taken? Readers are asking if a decision been made on the main gun and if the ships be TLAM capable. Is an anti-ship missile system set to be included? The current planning assumption is that the Type 26 Global Combat Ships' air defence capability will be provided by the Sea Ceptor missile system. Decisions about Sea Ceptor and which other equipments will be fitted to the ships will be finalised at the main investment decision. Many of the future systems used on Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be developed as part of the Capability Sustainment Programme for the Type 23s and this capability will then be 'cross decked' onto Type 26 Global Combat Ship as the new ships enter service. This strategy allows for an incremental upgrade in capability and will therefore reduce potential risks surrounding the Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme. How is the Global Combat Ship's future exportability playing its part in the development process of the Type 26? Beyond the Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme, the UK has stated a clear commitment to working with prospective international partners through a series of bilateral relationships to learn more about their requirements and ensure that they are met through Global Combat Ship. Early partner nation engagement in the programme will provide opportunities to influence the core Global Combat Ship platform design, which will ensure it is optimised to meet each partner's long-term naval requirements. www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=19558
Dave		#37	[-]
Posts: 1031 Apr 6 12 11:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	MSR wrote: As every pertinent feature has already been discussed, the only thing I can think to add is the observation that the blended hull configuration of the forward silo is a throwback to the Type 22s, after the bridge-and-a-box layout for the T23s and T45s. What drove this particular architectural feature? Optimal RCS reduction? Better sea keeping? Maximum internal volume and flexibility (perhaps maintenance access to the silo is now via a door from the main superstructure block, rather than up from below the main deck, or via a walk around the outside)? Okay, I'm struggling to come up with anything to say, now ;-) P.S. I don't mind the twin aft masts. They don't look wrong. And once you've copped an eyeball full of the Horizon frigate's masts, nothing else ever looks ugly, again! It does look a bit Type 22 ish. Maybe an attempt to appeal to export customers who currently operate Broadswords, eg. Brazil? http://www.defenceforce.eu/
Thorvicson	Type 26 JMSDF ?	#38	[-]
Posts: 302 Apr 6 12 12:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9185947/Britain-and-Japan-to-agree-lucrative-defence-deal.html Now that would have an intersting impact on the design if the Japanese got involved !, I can't see it myself as they have a healthy warship industry and a very US biased fit. Wouldn't mind seeing more Merlin orders however especially if they went for the Commando version as that would make a top up order of Merlin HC4 for the Royal Marines that bit more viable. Would be very impressed if we managed to sell them ASW versions but its more likely they are interested in the AEW options we are looking into.
bager1968		#39	[-]
Posts: 7592 Apr 7 12 3:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Indeed... a lot of wild speculation in that article... especially the T26 and Typhoon parts. Japan's choice of F-35 is so recent that they made the decision in full knowledge of the problems and cost issues, so it is hard to see them reversing course now. What I expect, outside of R&D programs, is for Japan to buy Merlins (as they have been hinting strongly they will do for their DDHs) and for the UK to buy Kawasaki P-1s to fill their long-term MPA needs. The Japanese are developing the P-1 to replace their P-3Cs, and have had all 4 prototypes flying since March 2010 (first flight was 28 September 2007). As the UK seems to be looking at using Sentinel & C-130 to fill some MPA requirements in the short-term, they can afford to wait for about 10 years for the P-1to mature and be in full production. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
istobie		#40	[-]
Posts: 2772 Apr 7 12 12:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah - they've got a working ship building industry and seem to have produced some very nice working ships without any input from us, plus they've more experience of integrating US systems into their native designs than we do so Type 26 is wild blue yonder speculation. Typhoon is a joke - they might rattle the sabre a bit to keep the price of F35 down but Tiffy cost more than F35 at UFR prices - can't see anything happening there. Merlin would be good news and the P1 is an interesting idea of course.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

T26