Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I believe Spearfish is also much slower at greater depths due to the back-pressure on the turbine. To make use of the high speed they run it out at a shallow depth, and dive down on to the target (if it is a submerged submarine).
Click to expand...
This aiui is not really necessary, it doesn't start to slow down until it gets really deep, talking significantly >500 meters
 
Looks like this might be in exchange for a pair of extra submarines. So, we've got a whole 'submarines vs anti-submarine frigate' dilemma.
 
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norway-could-get-in-build-royal-navy-type-26-frigate/
This is not a particularly newsworthy item to those familiar with the programme, but hopefully this section will put to bed the rumours that the RN might be forced to cut Type 26 orders to supply Norway (in order to save money overall).

Pollard added that the Royal Navy’s programme would not be reduced, stating: “The Royal Navy will receive all eight Type 26 ships during the late 2020s and 2030s as planned.”
Click to expand...
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgreze0yr6o
Shipyards in Glasgow will start building some Type-26 frigates for Norway before completing construction of an eight-ship order of the same warships for the Royal Navy.

Five of the advanced anti-submarine ships are at various stages of construction at BAE Systems yards on the River Clyde, with work yet to begin on a further three.

Last summer it was announced that Norway had placed a £10bn order for at least five Type 26 frigates, described as the biggest warship export deal in UK history.

Defence Minister Luke Pollard said that some build slots "have been ceded as part of the Norwegian deal" but he said the Royal Navy would still receive its full complement of eight ships.

In a written answer in the House of Commons he said additional orders would be placed to make up the total to eight, as part of the Defence Investment Plan.

Pollard previously said that building Norwegian ships before finishing the UK order would not affect the UK's defence capability, according to UK Defence Journal which first reported the story.

A week ago he told MPs the Royal Navy and Norwegian ships would operate as a "truly interoperable, interchangeable force".

He said: "The only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs.

"That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway."

The first of the new class of warship entered the Clyde at Govan in late 2022 and is currently being fitted at BAE's Scotstoun yard on the opposite bank of the river, and is due to enter service in two years' time.

The second Type 26 frigate HMS Cardiff is also at Scotstoun, while HMS Belfast is being constructed inside the new huge assembly hall at Govan along with HMS Birmingham.

Steel cutting for a fifth ship, HMS Sheffield, began in late 2024.

The Type 26 frigates - also known as City Class frigates - are large, highly specialised anti‑submarine ships designed to protect the UK's carrier groups.

They are fitted with advanced sonar, radar and submarine hunting helicopters.

The combined Royal Navy and Norwegian orders are expected to sustain naval shipbuilding on the Clyde well into the 2030s.

The two Glasgow shipyards employ more than 3,000 workers.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uF7nDNzLzc


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf7EW5dd90w
 
TomS said:
I'm wondering if VLA-ER (essentially VLA with a wing kit added to the torpedo) is further along than realized. It was supposedly shelved around 2010, but maybe LM has it to a point they could seriously propose it.

Post in thread 'RUR-5 ASROC and RUM-139 VL-ASROC (VLA)' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rur-5-asroc-and-rum-139-vl-asroc-vla.43255/post-669560


https://www.navylookout.com/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/
Click to expand...

Dredging this back up, because based on current USN budget docs, there seems to have been a study of VL ASROC and LRAW as far back as Q1 FY 2024, meaning late 2023.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...nts-new-lraw-stand-off-anti-submarine-weapon/

1778704462609.jpeg
 
Titus K said:
Especially strange since Norway is supposed to order the same configuration as the RN.
Click to expand...
That's likely not true, consider the Aus said the same words, the same configuration to Japanese, and right away ask for ESSM, SM-2, SM-6 (maybe) and NSM on their improved Mogami frigate. And Norweigian fleet will have nearly 0 fleet air defense and BMD capability if they choose to keep the same configuration as RN's City class frigate.
 
lucis1225 said:
That's likely not true, consider the Aus said the same words, the same configuration to Japanese, and right away ask for ESSM, SM-2, SM-6 (maybe) and NSM on their improved Mogami frigate. And Norweigian fleet will have nearly 0 fleet air defense and BMD capability if they choose to keep the same configuration as RN's City class frigate.
Click to expand...
Same ship but with some different missiles in the VLS. Japan uses ESSM, BTW, & most Japanese ships with a VLS have it. It's not really a configuration change.

Norwegian Type 26 won't be doing fleet air defence. They'll be doing self defence while hunting Russian submarines. And they'll have Mk41, so could carry longer-range SAMs than CAMM as long as they're integrated - which I hope is done.
 
swerve said:
Same ship but with some different missiles in the VLS. Japan uses ESSM, BTW, & most Japanese ships with a VLS have it. It's not really a configuration change.

Norwegian Type 26 won't be doing fleet air defence. They'll be doing self defence while hunting Russian submarines. And they'll have Mk41, so could carry longer-range SAMs than CAMM as long as they're integrated - which I hope is done.
Click to expand...
The difficulty lies in integrating US SAM missiles into CMS, especially the SM-2, which is born to be part of Aegis Weapon System, I don't see any other CMSs which can handle SM-2 that well like the US Aegis, thus, it is likely an Aegis exclusive SAM, at least from performance perspective.
 
lucis1225 said:
The difficulty lies in integrating US SAM missiles into CMS, especially the SM-2, which is born to be part of Aegis Weapon System, I don't see any other CMSs which can handle SM-2 that well like the US Aegis, thus, it is likely an Aegis exclusive SAM, at least from performance perspective.
Click to expand...
Apparently CAMM-MR still has the same 10km altitude limit of iriginal CAMM. Is that a realistic limit?
 
lucis1225 said:
The difficulty lies in integrating US SAM missiles into CMS, especially the SM-2, which is born to be part of Aegis Weapon System, I don't see any other CMSs which can handle SM-2 that well like the US Aegis, thus, it is likely an Aegis exclusive SAM, at least from performance perspective.
Click to expand...

The UK, and I suspect Norway as a result, has zero intention of integrating US SAM's to UK CMS. For the very simple reason that we want to retain and support our own guided weapons industry (remember BAE own a significant chunk of MBDA) and no one wants to be reliant on the US. By the time T26 arrives with the RNoN there will be the option of adding CAMM-ER at the very least, and probably the CAMM-MR missile in the Mk.41 as a dual pack given the timelines Poland wants it operational. A mixture of CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR would give T26 a range of effectors to use from 200m to 100km+, which in US terms would represent RAM, ESSM BLK II and SM2-MR levels of capability. It won't have an SM-6 or SM-3 capability...but thats not what Norway or the UK are looking for (there is always the potential of Stratus RS, FASE or a ground launched Meteor being used for longer range etc if someone really wanted it and paid for it).
 
lucis1225 said:
That's a shocking truth, for almost 1 year past since the selection of Type 26 for the winning bidder.
Click to expand...
Strikes me more as situation normal. Outside of UORs contracts never seem to move particularly fast.
 
timmymagic said:
The UK, and I suspect Norway as a result, has zero intention of integrating US SAM's to UK CMS. For the very simple reason that we want to retain and support our own guided weapons industry (remember BAE own a significant chunk of MBDA) and no one wants to be reliant on the US. By the time T26 arrives with the RNoN there will be the option of adding CAMM-ER at the very least, and probably the CAMM-MR missile in the Mk.41 as a dual pack given the timelines Poland wants it operational. A mixture of CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR would give T26 a range of effectors to use from 200m to 100km+, which in US terms would represent RAM, ESSM BLK II and SM2-MR levels of capability. It won't have an SM-6 or SM-3 capability...but thats not what Norway or the UK are looking for (there is always the potential of Stratus RS, FASE or a ground launched Meteor being used for longer range etc if someone really wanted it and paid for it).
Click to expand...
Well i think ESSM does have good chances considering Norways shares in it
 
kqcke for you said:
Well i think ESSM does have good chances considering Norways shares in it
Click to expand...

They have a stockpile of ESSM for the Fridjtof Nansen Class, but they're early Block I so will be EoL by the time T26 arrives. Nammo are involved in ESSM, but I suspect whether they use it or not will have little bearing on NAMMO's continuing involvement giving supplies of energetics for the foreseeable. Ultimately it would come down to the Norwegian's desire to pay for integration....
 
timmymagic said:
The UK, and I suspect Norway as a result, has zero intention of integrating US SAM's to UK CMS. For the very simple reason that we want to retain and support our own guided weapons industry (remember BAE own a significant chunk of MBDA) and no one wants to be reliant on the US. By the time T26 arrives with the RNoN there will be the option of adding CAMM-ER at the very least, and probably the CAMM-MR missile in the Mk.41 as a dual pack given the timelines Poland wants it operational. A mixture of CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR would give T26 a range of effectors to use from 200m to 100km+, which in US terms would represent RAM, ESSM BLK II and SM2-MR levels of capability. It won't have an SM-6 or SM-3 capability...but thats not what Norway or the UK are looking for (there is always the potential of Stratus RS, FASE or a ground launched Meteor being used for longer range etc if someone really wanted it and paid for it).
Click to expand...
But CAMM can’t be integrated into MK41 directly, only via ExLS. So far as I know, only CAMM had been certified for ExLS, which can be inserted into MK41 as Host-ExLS. However, CAMM-ER is too long for ExLS, which is physically impossible to integrate. That’s the reason why Polish “Miecznik”, ORP Wicher can only start with only 128 CAMM with Host-ExLS for 32 MK41. That’s really not good.
 
lucis1225 said:
But CAMM can’t be integrated into MK41 directly, only via ExLS. So far as I know, only CAMM had been certified for ExLS, which can be inserted into MK41 as Host-ExLS. However, CAMM-ER is too long for ExLS, which is physically impossible to integrate. That’s the reason why Polish “Miecznik”, ORP Wicher can only start with only 128 CAMM with Host-ExLS for 32 MK41. That’s really not good.
Click to expand...
Since CAMM is shorter range than anything normally worth fitting into Mk-41, is there somewhere that ExLS can be fitted without Mk-41 so that Mk-41 is dedicated to CAMM-ER and larger missiles? I feel like CAMM replaces the RAM launcher/VSHORAD role in RN service, so prefer not to cut into Mk-41 area defence capacity even if Mk-41 isn't always filled in peace time.
 
Theoretically, yes. But you might had confused CAMM-MR with CAMM-ER. CAMM-ER is an available weapon, currently haven’t integrated into MK41 and not fitted for ExLS, which also means not fitted for Host-ExLS, and it also seems to have difficulties in integrating itself, the cold launch and Aster originated nature of CAMM family, that’s why Naval Group developed so-called Sylver CL and Swedish Navy accepted it for CAMM-ER even when they had selected ExLS for CAMM on Visby.
 
Also, yes, ExLS can be a standalone VLS launcher. Only Host-ExLS acted like a interface between MK41 and CAMM, which cast doubts on Aster originated CAMM and Aster itself’s integration into MK41.
 
DJK said:
Since CAMM is shorter range than anything normally worth fitting into Mk-41, is there somewhere that ExLS can be fitted without Mk-41 so that Mk-41 is dedicated to CAMM-ER and larger missiles? I feel like CAMM replaces the RAM
Click to expand...
Ceptor a.k.a CAMM is more obviously the replacement of Sea Wolf and the final achievement of an local area defence system....something RN and USN have been on and off pursing since the 50's.
So it's not RAM equivalent.
That would have been SeaStreak, which never got funded.

You don't need ExLS to mount CAMM on a ship, ExLS gives you other load out options for systems.....sort of. But CAMM cells don't need it.

Hopefully CAMM-MR will also have such a cell option for land and naval use. Only using Mk41 were the customer requires it.
Because a cell system designed around cold/soft launch, obviates the need for heavy and bulky hot gas efflux management structures in the silo.
 
zen said:
Ceptor a.k.a CAMM is more obviously the replacement of Sea Wolf and the final achievement of an local area defence system....something RN and USN have been on and off pursing since the 50's.
So it's not RAM equivalent.
That would have been SeaStreak, which never got funded.
Click to expand...
Uhm, RAM is a ~10km range system, just like Sea Wolf. CAMM does have much better range than that, of course.
 
zen said:
Ceptor a.k.a CAMM is more obviously the replacement of Sea Wolf and the final achievement of an local area defence system....something RN and USN have been on and off pursing since the 50's.
So it's not RAM equivalent.
That would have been SeaStreak, which never got funded.

You don't need ExLS to mount CAMM on a ship, ExLS gives you other load out options for systems.....sort of. But CAMM cells don't need it.

Hopefully CAMM-MR will also have such a cell option for land and naval use. Only using Mk41 were the customer requires it.
Because a cell system designed around cold/soft launch, obviates the need for heavy and bulky hot gas efflux management structures in the silo.
Click to expand...
Of course CAMM don’t need ExLS to be mounted on a warship, but CAMM can only launch from MK41 via the Host-ExLS, CAMM can’t be directly launched from MK41. That’s why I found Royal Navy’s MK41 as the Standard VLS selection really weird as RN has nothing could be fit into MK41 unless they intend to purchase Tomahawk.
 
Not cannot, simple not yet.
Integration is just time and money
 
zen said:
Not cannot, simple not yet.
Integration is just time and money
Click to expand...
This is the same UK that has test ranges and integration capabilities, yet hasn't integrated a thing into their F-35s besides laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM. I don't think they even have Meteor integrated yet, FFS.

So good luck prying time and money out of Treasury to do the integrations with Mk41.
 
I don't want to quote everyone, but the consensus here seems to be that the Norwegian T26 may very well have a different radar suite and missile loadout than the RN ships ?
How is that possible if the 3rd ship, which is already under construction for the RN, is supposed to be transferred to Norway in ~2030 ?
 
Titus K said:
I don't want to quote everyone, but the consensus here seems to be that the Norwegian T26 may very well have a different radar suite and missile loadout than the RN ships ?
How is that possible if the 3rd ship, which is already under construction for the RN, is supposed to be transferred to Norway in ~2030 ?
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Scott Kenny said:
This is the same UK that has test ranges and integration capabilities, yet hasn't integrated a thing into their F-35s besides laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM. I don't think they even have Meteor integrated yet, FFS.
Click to expand...

Thats in the hands of LM...not the UK, its stuck in the entire Block IV morass...money and contracts long allocated and signed...
 
lucis1225 said:
Of course CAMM don’t need ExLS to be mounted on a warship, but CAMM can only launch from MK41 via the Host-ExLS, CAMM can’t be directly launched from MK41. That’s why I found Royal Navy’s MK41 as the Standard VLS selection really weird as RN has nothing could be fit into MK41 unless they intend to purchase Tomahawk.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the UK should have stuck with Sylver, but joined in with Italy developing A70-NG as the standard hot launch VL in both navies, suspect the French would have gone with it as well...

FYI - CAMM has never been launched from Host-ExLS mounted in a Mk.41....the trials were long ago on Standalone ExLS on land.

But....The Saudi MMSC (IF it ever gets finished) should prove Mk.41/Host ExLS integration with CAMM at sea.....and the Swedish Visby upgrade will prove Standalone ExLS with CAMM at sea.

lucis1225 said:
However, CAMM-ER is too long for ExLS, which is physically impossible to integrate.
Click to expand...

Extending the Host ExLS system would be the work of an afternoon in any competent engineering dept. All you'd need to do is add some additional trussing.

And IF LM haven't sketched that out already, and tried to recover some more of their ExLS investment they're insane...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom