Type 26 and 31

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
What is the respective costs of the Type 26 and Type 31. What would be the economy of scale if only Type 26 built for the entire 13 ship requirement.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
2,404
I link to the Wiki entries because they describe the tortuous path to ordering the two classes. They dont answer the cost question, but I am sure others will do that.
The Royal Navy has a history of finding it hard to afford its planned escort ships. Even during the Cold War the number of the vital Type 22 and Type 42 ships were cut at times of financial difficulty in the 70s and 80s.
The Royal Navy did not have a particularly high profile between 2001 and 2010 when the needs of soldiers in Afghistan and Iraq dominated the Defence debate. The sight of the Russian carrier limping through the Channel was in marked contrast to Cold War overflights of Kiev and co around the world.
China may be a political and economic worry for Whitehall but as M says to Admiral Roebuck in Tomorrow never dies: you arent going to send the fleet up against the Chinese Air Force.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
1,217
Not so sure that can be taken as a fact with tension at a very high level.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
The Type 31s are supposed to cost 2 billion pounds total for six ships (~333 million per ship). The Type 26s cost in excess of 1 billion pounds per ship across a total order of 8 ships. So at best, you could buy two Type 26s for all six Type 31s. That's not going to generate much extra efficiency. But it will close one whole set of shipyards...
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
280
Reaction score
262
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.

Erm, it's 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor. Sea Ceptor can quadpack into a Sylver VLS, so that's equivalent to 36 full-sized VLS cells.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
2,792
Going on track record I think the Type 31s will come out more expensive in reality or they will commission with kit missing to hide any cost overruns.
The Type 26s are meant to have some recycled sensors from Type 23 so that might have saved a little.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
Going on track record I think the Type 31s will come out more expensive in reality or they will commission with kit missing to hide any cost overruns.
The Type 26s are meant to have some recycled sensors from Type 23 so that might have saved a little.

Yeah, the Type 31 figure I used is already about 25% higher than the original estimates. But even worst case, I think they're about half the cost of a Type 26.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
280
Reaction score
262
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.

Erm, it's 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor. Sea Ceptor can quadpack into a Sylver VLS, so that's equivalent to 36 full-sized VLS cells.
Yeah, but still the type 26 has 24 Mk41 cells in addition to whatever the type 45 has.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
1,217
" but as M says to Admiral Roebuck in Tomorrow never dies: you aren't going to send the fleet up against the Chinese Air Force".

There is as you know high tension in the south China sea. The potential for the USN to continue to sail in the region and risk contact is high, as is the potential for the UKG to want to show its continuing commitment to cooperation with the US. That is the first time I have mentioned commitment btw.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.

Erm, it's 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor. Sea Ceptor can quadpack into a Sylver VLS, so that's equivalent to 36 full-sized VLS cells.
Yeah, but still the type 26 has 24 Mk41 cells in addition to whatever the type 45 has.

The Type 45 has 48 full-sized cells for ASTER SAMs, which have much more range than the 48 Sea Ceptor on the Mk 26. Assuming quadpack is adopted, it can carry the same 48 Sea Ceptor as the Type 26 plus 36 ASTER. So the apples-to-apples comparison is 48 Sea Ceptor in both types and 24 other missiles (most or all Tomahawk, presumably) on the Type 26 versus 36 long-range SAMs on the Type 45. Seems like the Type 45 is better equipped for its primary mission of area air defense, while the Type 26 is better suited to its primary missions of ASW and strike warfare. As it should be.

And let's also note that this discussion so far hasn't even touched on sensors. Type 45 spends a lot of displacement on TWO very powerful complementary air search radars (Sampson and S1850M/SMART-L) while Type 26 relies on a much smaller Type 997 Artisan radar. Conversely, Type 26 has much more space devoted to sonar, including the big Type 2087 LF active towed array, as one might expect for an ASW specialist ship.

So, two rather similar size ships are designed for different missions and strike rather different balances of armament and sensors. Sounds about right to me.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
The Type - 45 is also supposed to be able to be upgraded with a further three 8 cell vls', but I'm not sure if they were Sylvers of Mk 41's. That glorious statement 'fitted for but not with' rears it's ugly head.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
The Type - 45 is also supposed to be able to be upgraded with a further three 8 cell vls', but I'm not sure if they were Sylvers of Mk 41's. That glorious statement 'fitted for but not with' rears it's ugly head.

Yeah, but I don't know if anyone ever took that possibility seriously. With the Type 26 picking up the strike warfare role, adding cells to the Type 45 is definitely not happening now.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
280
Reaction score
262
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.

Erm, it's 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor. Sea Ceptor can quadpack into a Sylver VLS, so that's equivalent to 36 full-sized VLS cells.
Yeah, but still the type 26 has 24 Mk41 cells in addition to whatever the type 45 has.

So, two rather similar size ships are designed for different missions and strike rather different balances of armament and sensors. Sounds about right to me.
I assume T26 has 48x Sylver A43, each capable of carrying 4x Camm/er.
Is that correct?
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
T26- 192 Camm/Er*(A43) + 16 Tomahawk + 16 Rum-139

This is fiction.

1) Type 26 does not have 48 cells of A43 Sylver, it has 48 dedicated CAMM/Sea Ceptor soft vertical launch tubes. So where you get this idea of 192 CAMM-ER is beyond me.
2) There are a total of 24 Mk 41 cells on the Type 26. Basic math shows that 24 cells cannot carry 16 Tomahawk plus 16 VL-ASROC.
3) The RN is almost certainly not buying VL-ASROC at all.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
280
Reaction score
262
T26- 192 Camm/Er*(A43) + 16 Tomahawk + 16 Rum-139

This is fiction.

1) Type 26 does not have 48 cells of A43 Sylver, it has 48 dedicated CAMM/Sea Ceptor soft vertical launch tubes. So where you get this idea of 192 CAMM-ER is beyond me.
2) There are a total of 24 Mk 41 cells on the Type 26. Basic math shows that 24 cells cannot carry 16 Tomahawk plus 16 VL-ASROC.
3) The RN is almost certainly not buying VL-ASROC at all.
1) I though it was 6x A43 sylver system for 48 cells, hence my suprise.

2) My bad, i meant 12 tomahawks + 12 Asroc

3) For Asroc, from Jane's-

Fallon confirmed the decision to install a 24-cell Flexible Strike Silo fitted with Mk 41 launchers in a written response to Rory Stewart MP, chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee. His statement said the VLS infrastructure "will be able to accommodate a range of missiles from long-range strike weapons (such as the Tomahawk land attack missile) to anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine rockets with the weapon payload being reconfigured to meet changing threats and missions".
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
The statement that the Mk 41 "will be able to accommodate" ASROC is not the same as "we are acquiring" ASROC. There has been no reported acquisition action on VL ASROC in the six (6) years since that statement was made. Now, I see DES are at least mentioning ASW as one mission for the Strike (Mk 41) silos, but they haven't taken any actions to back that up.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
2,792
Actually with the Wildcat now seemingly dedicated to the anti-surface strike role and increasing numbers of Merlins now tied up on the carriers and for AEW, it might actually sensible for the RN to procure a longer-range ASW weapon.
I'm not sure if ASROC VL can carry Stingray though, so its probably a non-starter.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
Actually with the Wildcat now seemingly dedicated to the anti-surface strike role and increasing numbers of Merlins now tied up on the carriers and for AEW, it might actually sensible for the RN to procure a longer-range ASW weapon.
I'm not sure if ASROC VL can carry Stingray though, so its probably a non-starter.

If any escorts in the fleet are going to get Merlin, it's the Type 26s. Let the T45s have Wildcat, which they need to augment their otherwise limited surface warfare capability.

LM claim VLA can "readily accommodate" any lightweight torpedo, but that would require a new trials and certification effort. The RAF is buying Mk 54 for the P-8s to avoid that very issue, so perhaps the RN could buy off the shelf VLA with Mk 54 as well. It's encapsulated and needs no service outside a depot setting, so there's no maintenance afloat to consider. But as I say, there's no sign that they are actually interested. Tomahawk, at least some in the Block Va Maritime Strike version, is likely to be the main weapon for these cells.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
2,404
" but as M says to Admiral Roebuck in Tomorrow never dies: you aren't going to send the fleet up against the Chinese Air Force".

There is as you know high tension in the south China sea. The potential for the USN to continue to sail in the region and risk contact is high, as is the potential for the UKG to want to show its continuing commitment to cooperation with the US. That is the first time I have mentioned commitment btw.
After years of futile casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq and the clusterf**k that was and is Libya Parliamentary support in UK for such a mission is about as likely as it was for action against Assad. A Biden Presidency might change this, but China would have had to have interfered with civilian shipping like Iran in the Straits of Hormuz.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
1,489
T26- 192 Camm/Er*(A43) + 16 Tomahawk + 16 Rum-139
1) Type 26 does not have 48 cells of A43 Sylver, it has 48 dedicated CAMM/Sea Ceptor soft vertical launch tubes. So where you get this idea of 192 CAMM-ER is beyond me.
1) I though it was 6x A43 sylver system for 48 cells, hence my suprise.

Just for extra clarity, RN is buying CAMM, it's Italy buying CAMM-ER, which will need an extra metre of depth in the VLS cannisters (at 4.2m CAMM-ER just squeezes into a 4.3m Sylver A43 cell). I've seen no suggestions that CAMM-ER is compatible with the Type 23/26 GWS.35 VLS cells. In fact it almost certainly isn't given CAMM's weight is apparently supported from the deck below.
 
Last edited:

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
LM claim VLA can "readily accommodate" any lightweight torpedo, but that would require a new trials and certification effort. The RAF is buying Mk 54 for the P-8s to avoid that very issue, so perhaps the RN could buy off the shelf VLA with Mk 54 as well. It's encapsulated and needs no service outside a depot setting, so there's no maintenance afloat to consider. But as I say, there's no sign that they are actually interested. Tomahawk, at least some in the Block Va Maritime Strike version, is likely to be the main weapon for these cells.

Would a purchase of MILAS be more likely given the UK's links with MBDA? Also it could be fitted on open deck space as against fitted in a VLS.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
LM claim VLA can "readily accommodate" any lightweight torpedo, but that would require a new trials and certification effort. The RAF is buying Mk 54 for the P-8s to avoid that very issue, so perhaps the RN could buy off the shelf VLA with Mk 54 as well. It's encapsulated and needs no service outside a depot setting, so there's no maintenance afloat to consider. But as I say, there's no sign that they are actually interested. Tomahawk, at least some in the Block Va Maritime Strike version, is likely to be the main weapon for these cells.

Would a purchase of MILAS be more likely given the UK's links with MBDA? Also it could be fitted on open deck space as against fitted in a VLS.


Seems unlikely. They already bought Mk 41, why pay for box launchers too?
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
406
Reaction score
486
Just build the second batch of Type 26 in the RAN Hunter configuration, problem solved. World class combat system and radar set, 32 verses 24 cell Mk41 providing a decent area defence capability, while not sacrificing any ASW capability.

At the same time the RAN should cap the number of OPVs at twelve then rerole them the MCM and hydro replacing them in combatant role with Type 31 ;)
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
85
Reaction score
74
Some misleading things have stated here, let me attempt to correct (hopefully I don't add anything that is incorrect myself):

1. No work has been done to fit, test or qualify quad packed CAMM to Sylver. It is a theoretical possibility that is all. It would be a non-trivial exercise.
2. Quad packed CAMM in Mk 41's require ExLs which has been qualified and tested to fire CAMM.
3. LM has not claimed CAMM-ER will fit ExLs.
4. The Type 45 carries a mixture of Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. Aster 15 has a range that is comparable to CAMM.
5. Space has been left on the Type 45s (it's currently used as a gym) for fitting a Mk 41 silo. The assumption has been these would be for Tomahawk missiles.
6. The UK has a small stock of Tomahawks for firing from their SSN's. A very small stock.
7. The UK has no missiles apart from this handful of Tomahawks that would fit the 24 Mk 41 cells on a Type 26. That's assuming submarine launched missiles are compatible with Mk 41. No steps have been taken yet to buy any missile for those ships. ASROC has been mentioned on several occasions as being one such possibility.
8. The RN does not require the Type 26 to have an area AA ability. The type 26 is for ASW with a robust AA self defense capability. Whether it will be also outfitted for land attack is an open question. Given the UK current budget situation, they probably will not. If they do, it will most likely be the future Anglo-French cruise missile.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
Good to know about CAMM and Sylver. MBDA are more definitive, but that's not surprising.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
I thought that there were going to be 8 Type - 26, and I though they had all been ordered in a single batch?


What is the intended armament; beside the 57mm & 40mm Bofors, of the Type - 31?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
What is the intended armament; beside the 57mm & 40mm Bofors, of the Type - 31?
The original was "up to" 24 CAMM but the latest images show only 12 silos. And probably some hand-aimed machineguns/miniguns.

There was some discussion of space and weight reservations for antiship missiles, or even things like Mk 41 VLS, but I would definitely not hold my breath on that.
 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
1,489
4. The Type 45 carries a mixture of Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. Aster 15 has a range that is comparable to CAMM.
Has there ever been any confirmation from official sources that the RN bought Aster 15?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
Has anyone got any details of the Type 4X program , the proposed AAW version of the Type 26?

Anyone know what the naming convention will be for the Type 31's?
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
632
Has anyone got any details of the Type 4X program , the proposed AAW version of the Type 26?

Anyone know what the naming convention will be for the Type 31's?
Neither the RN/MoD nor the British government more generally have made definitive statements about the naming convention.

Type 4X is an official internal study or programme (I'm a bit murky where the line lies between those in the UK) seeking a replacement for Type 45 in the 2030s. One of the options under serious consideration is an AAW variant of Type 26, though options including an updated T45 or AAW T31 are also somewhat in the running. There are two significant drivers behind the T26 preference, one is the existence of the Australian and Canadian T26 variants (which prove the hull's overall flexibility and specifically its ability to host a more impressive radar suite) and the other is the desire to support the T26 industrial base with additional hulls. Related to that latter point, there's a hope that going with a T26-based T4X would be affordable enough to develop and build that it would leave budget room for further T31 buys, allowing the UK to maintain two parallel warship production lines and increase the overall size of the surface combatant fleet.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
85
Reaction score
74
Has anyone got any details of the Type 4X program , the proposed AAW version of the Type 26?

Anyone know what the naming convention will be for the Type 31's?
Neither the RN/MoD nor the British government more generally have made definitive statements about the naming convention.

Type 4X is an official internal study or programme (I'm a bit murky where the line lies between those in the UK) seeking a replacement for Type 45 in the 2030s. One of the options under serious consideration is an AAW variant of Type 26, though options including an updated T45 or AAW T31 are also somewhat in the running. There are two significant drivers behind the T26 preference, one is the existence of the Australian and Canadian T26 variants (which prove the hull's overall flexibility and specifically its ability to host a more impressive radar suite) and the other is the desire to support the T26 industrial base with additional hulls. Related to that latter point, there's a hope that going with a T26-based T4X would be affordable enough to develop and build that it would leave budget room for further T31 buys, allowing the UK to maintain two parallel warship production lines and increase the overall size of the surface combatant fleet.

Very little is correct in this posting.

Initial requirements studies are underway for the Type 45 replacement. That means trying to predict the technologies & threats that will exist in the 2040+ time frame. For example, what will be the weapon of choice to counter ballistic missile? Another missile, a direct energy weapons or a gun? They are at least a decade away from involving naval architects and considering platforms.

A type 26 based replacement would be very unlikely. That design would be rather old by then, and is highly optimized for ASW with extremely expensive adaptations for silent running. Because the current design is at its L/D limit, no simple stretch is available to increase size. And of course a new Type 45X design would keep in employment the UK design staffs rather than let design skills atrophy. The US has shown how problematical it is to let those skills wither.

The desire to increase the UK's escort fleet isn't related at all to a Type 45 replacement. It's too far off. It will be satisfied with extra Type 31's or type 32's.
 

swerve

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
16
Reaction score
10
So, from the get go, the type 26 frigate will have more firepower(48 Sylver + 24 Mk41) than the type 45(48 Sylver) destroyer.
Logic.

Erm, it's 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor. Sea Ceptor can quadpack into a Sylver VLS, so that's equivalent to 36 full-sized VLS cells.
Yeah, but still the type 26 has 24 Mk41 cells in addition to whatever the type 45 has.
No, "not in addition to". Type 45 has 48 Sylver A50. They can take Aster 30 missiles, & potentially (not integrated, but MBDA & DCNS say it can be done), quad packed CAMM - including, presumably, quad-packed CAMM-ER. That's up to 48 longish range SAMs, 192 shorter (up to medium) range, or a mixture. Currently can only carry 48 missiles, though.

Type 26 will have 24 Mk 41 & 24 (not 48) launchers for CAMM - & only CAMM. That's 24 long range plus 24 shortish range SAMs, or 120 short-medium range SAMs, or something in between, with the option of up to 24 anti-surface missiles instead of long-range SAM.
 

swerve

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
16
Reaction score
10
Some misleading things have stated here, let me attempt to correct (hopefully I don't add anything that is incorrect myself):

...
3. LM has not claimed CAMM-ER will fit ExLs.
...
I looked at the dimensions. Couldn't find a definitive height for ExLS, but found a cutaway drawing on, IIRC, an LM web page showing an ExLS canister with a CAMM missile (of which the length is public) in it. Assuming it's accurate & comparing it with the published length of CAMM-ER, I can't see how CAMM-ER could fit in ExLS. It'd need a taller ExLS cell.

I suspect that explains why LM has not claimed it will fit.

It looks to me as if MBDA designed CAMM-ER to be the biggest missile that could be quad-packed into the Sylver A43.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
1,322
Someone has to state the obvious, that CAMM cells don't need a VLS silo with rocket efflux baffles exhaust etc ..
The cell is it's own self contained launcher, using a pneumatic accelerator to throw the missile upwards.
This means you can install the cells in many more places than a fixed battery of VLS silos.

It's reasonably feasible to add more CAMM cells to Type 26 or Type 31.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365
Type 26 will have 24 Mk 41 & 24 (not 48) launchers for CAMM - & only CAMM.

Is there an official source for the number of CAMM cells on the Type 26? I can't find one, but the unofficial sources I see all say 48 missiles, and the models show two nests of 24 CAMM VLS, one forward of the bridge and Mk 41 nest and a second midships, just aft of the main stack.

That's 24 long range plus 24 shortish range SAMs, or 120 short-medium range SAMs, or something in between, with the option of up to 24 anti-surface missiles instead of long-range SAM.

There is no indication that the RN intends to use those 24 Mark 41 cells for SAMs of any sort. They appear to be essentially a space reservation for some future strike weapon, whether it is Tomahawk (or its successor Next-Gen Land Attack Weapon) or the Anglo-French FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon), which is supposed to succeed SCALP/Storm Shadow and have a ship-launched version.

I think the selection of Mk 41 VLS is suggestive of RN preferences. If the RN were committed to ship-launched FC/ASW, it would make more sense to fit Sylver launchers in the Type 26. The French will certainly want to use Sylver for their version of FC/ASW, and having the same launchers in the Type 26 (and Type 45) would simplify development. Selecting Mk 41 for the Type 26 means that either the RN prefers Tomahawk/NGLAW or they are willing to pay extra to integrate FC/ASW into a second type of launcher for no obvious operational benefit.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,871
Reaction score
2,365

I think the selection of Mk 41 VLS is suggestive of RN preferences. If the RN were committed to ship-launched FC/ASW, it would make more sense to fit Sylver launchers in the Type 26. The French will certainly want to use Sylver for their version of FC/ASW, and having the same launchers in the Type 26 (and Type 45) would simplify development. Selecting Mk 41 for the Type 26 means that either the RN prefers Tomahawk/NGLAW or they are willing to pay extra to integrate FC/ASW into a second type of launcher for no obvious operational benefit.



FC/ASW to be operational on Type 26 from 2028

Well, I seem to be wrong.

Still confused about about why they would pay to integrate this missile with two different types of VLS when they could have just put Sylver in the T26. Possibly FC/ASW is actually meant to fire from deck-mounted box launchers? But if so, what the heck is the Mk 41 for?
 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
1,489
Still confused about about why they would pay to integrate this missile with two different types of VLS when they could have just put Sylver in the T26. Possibly FC/ASW is actually meant to fire from deck-mounted box launchers? But if so, what the heck is the Mk 41 for?

I'd presume they want the option to sell it to both Sylver and Mk41 customers, and while France will insist on Sylver there's more Mk41 customers out there. Though that still leaves the question of why they'd go Mk 41 in Type 26 unanswered, unless there's something else that only fits in Mk41 that the RN has its eye on.
 

Similar threads

Top