• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
Is it officially being considered? or just a good picture of a Type 26 with a Sampson like mast grafted on and S1850 aft? Defence Journal isn't a particularly good site in my opinion - lots of puff pieces and "news that isn't news" as I see it, and the quality of the comments leaves much to be desired.

Given it is notably smaller, how would it carry the same sized VLS?

The Sampson + S1850 combination is very 1990s thinking, not least as it's often commented the latter radar is really superfluous in many respects. We are 20 years past that now and the USN FIII Burkes shows the kind of radar fit we'd be looking to build now (so just about right for us to do it in 2035, 15 years behind them!).

Daring only commissioned in 2009, so with a 30 year life, do we still want a design concept from teh 2010s to be what we build in 2040/50s? If nothing else we'd want a new design or we'd lose the ability to design it, assuming we still have that (it would be far more sensible to have built all the Type 26s first, then move to the T31 rather than do both simultaneously).

It does look nice though ;-)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,750
Reaction score
640
If you read the article, it's clear that the image is not official at all. The only thing that seems to be "official" is that there is some consideration of creating an air defense version of the Type 26. I suspect this would have about the same relationship to the Type 45 as FREMM DA has to the Horizon. So basically a stripped down ship cheaper but less capable than the Type 45.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,673
Reaction score
851
Probably looks good for the export market too.
It's not a terrible concept though, it already has more VLS cells than the Type 45 and adding Aster to CAMM and/or CAMM-ER then you have a nice little package. Plus it already has a 5in gun and Tomahawk capability. You could say that the Daring is rather large and expensive for the combat power it has in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
How does it have more full length cells than T45?

that has 48 up front plus space for 16.
T26 has 32 up front if pure larger type and the mid space is currently the small, soft launch CAMM.

T45 also lifts the primary radar up higher which is clearly a performance driver for its design.

I also doubt T26 could accomodate the S1850 stack and radar where it is dropped in the photo as it would be competing for topweight with the middle VLS and space/EMCON with the other aerials and antennas.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
As TomS has pointed out, it is early days yet, and Project Castlemaine may fall by the wayside as a Type 45 successor option.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
There are several reasons why they might explore or have explored a AAW variant of Type 26, and the obvious one is during the fiasco of Type 45's powerplant issues.
However it is also likely to have been explored earlier as a means to get more Sea Viper systems since the expensive Type 45 lost half it's production run.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
With the original Type 26 design you mean? Quite possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
Yes in fact I vaguely recall something about Type 27 and Type 28 being based on the same hull and propulsion as Type 26.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
It is a nice picture though. Seems a little out of T26 scope. If we could afford an AAW version of T26, with design costs included we'd just have bought more T45s surely? the powerplant issues were real in 2013 when I personally watched one floating without power somewhere hot, but by then the T45 program as an order book was the best part of 5 years closed. Plus they always knew how to fix the problems, they just didn't have the money and didn't want to admit it early on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
Yes in fact I vaguely recall something about Type 27 and Type 28 being based on the same hull and propulsion as Type 26.
Unfortunately, that went by the wayside when they adopted a new, supposedly more export market friendly design, ignoring a number of the Royal Navy's requirements and driving up costs considerably. :rolleyes:
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
What requirements did they ignore?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
What requirements did they ignore?
Crew accommodation, survivability, ease of maintenance, and displacement, to name but just a few. The Royal Navy wanted a pretty austere frigate but still designed to naval standards, in both GP and ASW versions, that could be built in reasonably large numbers. Initially the basic design that was produced met those requirements nicely. Unfortunately, the government of the day then became enamoured with the 'Global Frigate' concept that would be supposedly more attractive for the export market, and the original design team was superseded by new designers. The Global Frigate came about around the height of the fad for hybrid and commercial spec 'warships'. What the Royal Navy ended up with was a totally different 'all in one' design; an oversized 'Gucci' hybrid standard frigate that ignored most of the RN's needs and was ruinously expensive, meaning only a few could be procured, totally defeating the entire point of the Type 26 program. This in turn resulted in the Type 31 frigate (really a corvette) program being hastily thrown together. So far the Type 26 hasn't been successful on the export market, managing to gain one or two orders that the original design probably could have gotten without even trying.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
I don’t think any of that is true! Is this parody?

Type 26 is very clearly the culmination of 20 years of RN development. In every way it is what the RN wants right down to weapons, propulsion, quietening, accomodation, flexible mission space, command system - in effect a Type 23 with the size and space to work, unlike the increasingly cramped T23 the RN has had 30 years of experience trying to maintain and improve, and reliability issues whenever deployed to where it wants to send warships.

So much so it was felt, as offen before, it wouldn’t be successfull on export hence a more export friendly type was needed - Type 31e of Parker review. Yet it is the T26 that has suceeded more than any British ship at exports since Leanders of 50 years ago!

Type 26 is literally exactly what the RN has wanted for half a century.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
I'm afraid that you are sorely mistaken there, Purpletrouble.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your post there starviking. The Canadian order is for a frigate based on the Type 26; Lockheed Martin will be in effect the primary designer on this program, so God only knows what the final product will be like. And the Australian order is still in some difficultly, I believe.
 
Last edited:

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
Have you any evidence, at all, for these assertions?

The RN’s inly bugbear with T26 is it cant get more of them and is being forced to get T31s. Originally these were the “export” design, but there has been zero interest vs unprecedented for T26, and they are in fact us buying a foreign export.

It is a fact the Type 26 design has had more export success than any other since Leander. Hull wise more so. None of it’s predecessors sold exports at all, and not to the countries you seem to think lap up anything British.

Type 26 is the UK finally getting it right. So much so the US is looking at it - It wont buy it, but since when has the US even looked at a UK warship.

Sorry, but unless you can evidence this stuff, the facts speak for themselves.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
814
I am mid way between you Gentlemen.
The UK tends to exaggerate its warship export successes.
The Australian, Dutch and Indian Leanders were different from the RN ships and mainly built abroad.
The 4 Brasilian Mk10s were a non-RN though similar to the T21.
Argentina did have 1 UK built T42 (the other built locally)
No T22,T23 or T45 ships were sold (except as ex-RN cheapos)
So if theT26 is even licence built in Canada and Oz it will be an improvement over the last 45 years
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
Type 26 is the outcome of probably the most studied warship effort in the RN's history. Starting with Future Escort, going nuts with Future Surface Combatant, veering off into Global Cruiser and Global Corvette and finally after more 'paper' (electronic files really) studies and designs than anything outside of the Army's failed efforts. We have an outcome.
Tightly defined as needing this amount of space not just to sustain operations far from home, but make upgrades and alterations easy and affordable
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
34
Reaction score
19
Mentioning affordable in the same breath as the T26 might be a slight exaggeration, the MoD budget is £4 billion for the first batch of three ships, BAE contract is £3.7 billion.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
Mentioning affordable in the same breath as the T26 might be a slight exaggeration, the MoD budget is £4 billion for the first batch of three ships, BAE contract is £3.7 billion.
I can't comment on BAE Systems, but space in a warship is a premium product for those aboard her. It doesn't actually cost much these days but it's value is greater than gold
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
34
Reaction score
19
Mentioning affordable in the same breath as the T26 might be a slight exaggeration, the MoD budget is £4 billion for the first batch of three ships, BAE contract is £3.7 billion.
I can't comment on BAE Systems, but space in a warship is a premium product for those aboard her. It doesn't actually cost much these days but it's value is greater than gold
The massive 75% bloat in the size of the 8,800t T26 compared to the 4,900t T23 was driven by Fallan/RN choice to build as a Special Forces Ops/ASW ship (official T26GCS KUR led by the SF ops - Maritime Fires, Special Forces Operations, Anti-Air Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Coastal Suppression, Maritime Interdiction Operations, Interoperability, Survivability, Readiness, Reach, Intelligence, Standing Commitments, Concurrency, Flexibility and Availability)

This led to 100 feet plus mission bay sized to take 4 x 12m RHIB's (don't think RN have any that big!) for the insertion of RM/SAS troops and a flight deck big enough and with necessary strength (weight) to accept Chinook, ramp down, for troop embarkation plus Mk45 5" gun with its very expensive and unique automated magazine.

For the same money the Spanish buying five, not three, new Navantia F110 frigates with same Thales ASW sonar suite and an order of magnitude more powerful radar system, four panel AESA array with GaN silicon which ~ 5 times more powerful, the ships quiet propulsion system optimised for ASW will be a near carbon copy of the T26, four 3MW DG's plus two 3.4MW electric shaft motors and a GT for high speed sprints.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
I think one has to consider that while people tend to say Type 26 is the successor to Type 23, it seems far more like it succeeds the Type 22.

And unfortunately for us, this means elements of the ship are likely to remain very 'black' for a long time. All I can suggest is take a look at those aerials and remember how capable Type 22 was for electronic signals interception.
If you're looking for where the genuine gold plating is coming from, look there.

Strictly bar the lack of ASW focus the Type 31 is much more a Type 23 successor.

As for the 5" gun......RN has been trying to get one since the 50's, and one that is compatible with USN USN ammunition.....
Because the stocks of 4.5" barrels will run out eventually as will existing stocks of 4.5" ammunition.

It certainly is no bad thing to have a flight deck that doesn't limit the kind of helicopter that can land on her.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
Chinook spec has been the case since T45.
Gun as Zen says.
EW wise T23s have a lot of capability but very shoehorned in.

T26 is a T23 successor, just able to do sensibly what T23 is an utter nightmare to do but by hook and by crook, because we are “can do”, it does. T23 routinely deploy with 230 people on board, life support is poor (been there!). Systems cannot all be cooled properly and breakdowns are frequent. Just not obvious total electricals like T45...

T26 is absolutely what the RN wants, T23 ASW and all the space for the EW and littoral stuff they spend far more of their time and as much if not more of their priority time - doing. All in a ship that can spend time at sea (not lacking proper cold storage or effectively inability to RAS provisions because it lacks easy access for stuff to move). Throw in UAV space and it is very obvious why the size has grown.

Plus of course it needs less refuelling as it can operate independently vs T23 where that was cut because it was expected to work with an AOR.

T45 is the same vs T42. The T26 is the absolutely logical outcome of a deployable T23 able to do much better everything expected of it. It is exactly what I saw coming for 20 years of following and being part of this stuff.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
If one has spent time at sea on a boat, frankly if one is say tasked with fixing something at sea on a boat. Or even if we're honest on land in a house like my parents home.

Then one of the things you will discover is that whoever's designed this stuff, never had to maintain it.

Pipes you need to get to, or wiring often snake into crevices you didn't think existed, and quickly discover that you need to be some sort of octopus with eyes on the end of you hands that can see in the dark....

Because while it's often cheaper to slap something together into such spaces as you build it, once it's all completed.....the position of access hatches, the location of even a nut on a pipe suddenly becomes really important when something goes wrong.

And at sea, the absolute truth is that things will go wrong.

Space on a ship is a godsend for those who maintain her.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
T23 is an absolute fing nightmare for that. The crews work unbelievably hard constantly trying to fix stuff, and where we deploy them the ship (power/cooling) just barely copes even with that massive TLC. That is why newer gen T45/26/31 are so much bigger as we are adopting design standards more like the US. Still it should be pointed out - not to the full US standard.

A Sea Viper T26 as this thread is on, would really need to be a bigger hull unless reduced capability (radar height and VSR) plus cell count was accepted.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
Type 26 is the outcome of probably the most studied warship effort in the RN's history.
The original design yes. What the Royal Navy ultimately got was something else entirely. The 'old' plan was for the navy to get eight ASW variants and five GP variants (and even that was less than they needed). Instead they will be extremely lucky if they can get four of an expensive frigate that is optimized for expeditionary operations in littoral waters (and precious little else). The Type 26 program can be considered to be a total failure by just about any metric one can think of, apart from possibly maintaining shipbuilding capacity.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
No Type 26 is going to be the premier ASW warship of it's generation and that has always been a recurring issue in this process.
Many times, often I suspect under No.11's urging efforts to find a way of not needing specialised ASW focused hull and propulsion was looked at and each time it fell apart under analysis.
Just as with No.11 constantly challenging the size of CVF and multiple studies delivering the same unwanted answer

It's frankly cheaper to put the effort into quietened hull and propulsion at start than try to squeeze it into an existing design.

I grant you the original requirement was 20-22 FSC. But we couldn't crew them for the last decade of not for longer. Until we can settle on sustainable numbers of personnel and maintain that training throughput and sustainment/retention, there is literally no point in building huge fleets of warships. Most of which would sit unused for decades.
We can't even crew 13 Type 26, hence Type 31.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
If you really want to challenge the whole thing then start from first principles.

A lot of what the RN does can be done by much smaller and cheaper assets.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
34
Reaction score
19
I think one has to consider that while people tend to say Type 26 is the successor to Type 23, it seems far more like it succeeds the Type 22.

And unfortunately for us, this means elements of the ship are likely to remain very 'black' for a long time. All I can suggest is take a look at those aerials and remember how capable Type 22 was for electronic signals interception.
If you're looking for where the genuine gold plating is coming from, look there.
Just to note the RN SIGINT mission is handled by the T45 not the T26, MoD bought seven sets including one for training of the USN AN/SSQ-130 SSEE Increment F, Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment for ~$90 million, none have been purchased for the T26. Full write up SavetheRoyalNavy - Project Shaman
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
38
Reaction score
38
Type 26 is the outcome of probably the most studied warship effort in the RN's history.
The original design yes. What the Royal Navy ultimately got was something else entirely. The 'old' plan was for the navy to get eight ASW variants and five GP variants (and even that was less than they needed). Instead they will be extremely lucky if they can get four of an expensive frigate that is optimized for expeditionary operations in littoral waters (and precious little else). The Type 26 program can be considered to be a total failure by just about any metric one can think of, apart from possibly maintaining shipbuilding capacity.
The Canadian and Australian Navies beg to differ. T26 beat the competition into a cocked hat in both cases.

Some extremely dubious claims in this thread, far below this site's usual standard. My favorite is the "more than 100 foot mission bay".
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
645
Reaction score
337
[For the same money the Spanish buying five, not three, new Navantia F110 frigates
And given the choice of Type 26 and F110 Australia chose Type 26. Perhaps the comparison isn't quite as simple.

(Possibly a reflection of Australia's painful experience getting the Hobarts (Navantia F105s) into the water).
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
Type 26 is the outcome of probably the most studied warship effort in the RN's history.
The original design yes. What the Royal Navy ultimately got was something else entirely. The 'old' plan was for the navy to get eight ASW variants and five GP variants (and even that was less than they needed). Instead they will be extremely lucky if they can get four of an expensive frigate that is optimized for expeditionary operations in littoral waters (and precious little else). The Type 26 program can be considered to be a total failure by just about any metric one can think of, apart from possibly maintaining shipbuilding capacity.
That just makes no sense.

If T26 was this exped/littoral ship then it would be the 5x GP. As it is, it has S2087, Merlin, quietening (v.expensive rafts, propellors, aux machinery moubtings and noise path analysis for the desgin) and so on to do that ASW role as its premier role.

It’s precisely because it has all the expensive ASW features that it was judged too expensive to build GP variants on which a lot of that cost wasn’t felt to be needed. Hence T31 which is the expeditionary/littoral ship - right down to its new gun systems intended for just that purpose.

T26 has that stuff as well, because as history for several hundred years has shown, RN ships do a multiplicity of tasks in peace and war and the 20C specialisation went too far forgetting many of these ops are vital in cold wars and also in hot.

Are you sure you’re looking at the right projects?
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
34
Reaction score
19
[For the same money the Spanish buying five, not three, new Navantia F110 frigates
And given the choice of Type 26 and F110 Australia chose Type 26. Perhaps the comparison isn't quite as simple.

(Possibly a reflection of Australia's painful experience getting the Hobarts (Navantia F105s) into the water).
Nothing is simple especially with multi-billion dollar contracts, Navantia offered a variant of the old F100/Hobart (which does not have an ASW quiet HED propulsion system and is in competition for the USN FFG(X) contract) for the SEA5000 ASW frigate competition won by the T26 Hunter variant June 2018, the new F110 was not ready, Spain only placed contract in April 2019. After the massive Hobart overspend did not think Navantia would be allowed back in Australia but subsequently they won the Australian Navy competition for two oilers, Supply class.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
645
Reaction score
337
If one has spent time at sea on a boat, ...

Then one of the things you will discover is that whoever's designed this stuff, never had to maintain it.

Pipes you need to get to, or wiring often snake into crevices you didn't think existed, and quickly discover that you need to be some sort of octopus with eyes on the end of you hands that can see in the dark....
Hands? What is this "hands"? One hand for the ship, one hand for yourself.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
449
If one has spent time at sea on a boat, ...

Then one of the things you will discover is that whoever's designed this stuff, never had to maintain it.

Pipes you need to get to, or wiring often snake into crevices you didn't think existed, and quickly discover that you need to be some sort of octopus with eyes on the end of you hands that can see in the dark....
Hands? What is this "hands"? One hand for the ship, one hand for yourself.
Lol try that when you need to break the seal on a sewage pipe in a pitching sea.
Rather you jam yourself into a space where you brace with your legs or.....if you're really unlucky someone else provides the bracing....
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
If T26 was this exped/littoral ship then it would be the 5x GP. As it is, it has S2087, Merlin, quietening (v.expensive rafts, propellors, aux machinery moubtings and noise path analysis for the desgin) and so on to do that ASW role as its premier role.
Both the ASW and GP variants were intended to be able to support operations in littoral areas by default (the mission bay playing a major role in this). There was some consideration given to a third (even more barebones than the GP frigate) variant specifically dedicated to Green Water operations but that ultimately came to nothing. The main difference between the GP and the ASW variants was that the latter would have had the more extensive (and expensive) equipment fit, the GP variant being fitted for but not with. In theory the GP variants could have been converted/upgraded into ASW variants in a hurry if required, but in practice there would have been only enough equipment sets procured for the default eight ASW frigates.

With regards as to the Canadian and Australian orders, the (revised design) Type 26 struggled to win what should have been slam dunk contracts (and more than likely would have been for the original design). And the Canadian win was very nearly overturned (only the last ditch playing of the 'vital to national interests' card saved it). Securing the Australian order was a little bit easier in comparison, thanks in very large part to Navantia's reputation having taken more than a few knocks in recent times.
 

Purpletrouble

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
221
Reaction score
151
Your first para has no relevance to your former claims. Indeed you now seem to be shifting to actually agree T26 is a capable design based around ASW.

Plans change, the barebones 3rd variant was never T26 but “C3” and the River2s have eventually occupied that slot (for better or worse).

T26 fills exactly the ASW/GP slot it was intended to, there is no reason why a GP T26 could not be built - except that what people want is a GP/ASW ship and not some oversilenced FFBNW thing. The latter evolved to T31 because of a concern T26 was costly due to the ASW role requirements and FFBNW would never be actioned (which it wouldn’t). It was also hoped to promote exports as the T26 was felt to be too capable and expensive to appeal overseas. That was the mistake and T31 is in my view merely a costly attempt at “anyone but BAE”, but which will bring a seperate strand of parts, weapons and training yet again. They’ll be the first to go.

No British warship has won a Canadian or Australian order since the 1960s, nearly 60 years ago. The 60 years prior to that they were practically 100% British. That should tell you something about how far we diverged and the idea any British design should automatically achieve their sales is patently absurd and that it has is a major sign the RN is getting its designs right after a long time of not.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
34
Reaction score
19
Don't think the Navantia F100/Hobart was a serious contender for the Australian Hunter contract whose primary mission was ASW as it did not have the expensive silenced HED propulsion system with the shaft mounted electric motors (no noisy gearboxes in HED mode) as did both FREMM and T26

Think in part the selection of the T26 in preference to the FREMM-IT driven by the larger displacement, 8,800t vs 6,900t

The additional displacement gives the ship additional stability to carry the new gen heavy CEAFAR2 radar with its 20 antennas, L,S and X bands on its unique six sided integrated mast. The CEAFAR2 radar is significantly more powerful than the light T26 Artisan radar with resultant high power consumption, produces more heat and needs more cooling, so requiring substantially upgraded HVAC from the T26 and spatial management.

PS
As noted in earlier post the new Navantia F110 with its HED propulsion system was not ready in time to enter the Australian SEA5000 competition.
To be noted the FREMM-US design competing for the larger USN FFG(X) contract (winner due to be declared latest this July) has been lengthened and displacement increased to 7,400t

Hunter_SEA5000_CEAFAR2_CEA_Radar_BAE-GCS-T26_PACIFIC_2015.jpg
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
1,421
Your first para has no relevance to your former claims. Indeed you now seem to be shifting to actually agree T26 is a capable design based around ASW.

Plans change, the barebones 3rd variant was never T26 but “C3” and the River2s have eventually occupied that slot (for better or worse).

T26 fills exactly the ASW/GP slot it was intended to, there is no reason why a GP T26 could not be built - except that what people want is a GP/ASW ship and not some oversilenced FFBNW thing. The latter evolved to T31 because of a concern T26 was costly due to the ASW role requirements and FFBNW would never be actioned (which it wouldn’t). It was also hoped to promote exports as the T26 was felt to be too capable and expensive to appeal overseas. That was the mistake and T31 is in my view merely a costly attempt at “anyone but BAE”, but which will bring a seperate strand of parts, weapons and training yet again. They’ll be the first to go.

No British warship has won a Canadian or Australian order since the 1960s, nearly 60 years ago. The 60 years prior to that they were practically 100% British. That should tell you something about how far we diverged and the idea any British design should automatically achieve their sales is patently absurd and that it has is a major sign the RN is getting its designs right after a long time of not.
My apologies if I was not being clear enough about the original design, with two variants, being firmly in the past tense. The revised design does not have separate variants. Despite it being noticeably larger than the original design it also does not have a mission bay, which was supposed to be key to undertaking & supporting littoral operations. Incidentally, the revised design's ASW capability is worse than that of the old design GP variant. Even with much reduced capabilities overall, costs have skyrocketed on the program, to the point where the Royal Navy will be hard pressed to buy a mere three examples (compared to the old design's eleven frigates in two variants). Not to mention that a very short while ago the RN / MOD were seriously considering cancelling the program altogether; only the argument that more shipyards would be lost (with resulting politically toxic direct and indirect job losses) ultimately stayed their hand. With the ongoing fallout from the current crisis (including rapidly worsening programs costs if that was possible) that stay of execution may be reviewed in the very near future.

I should note in passing that the C3 (the so called 'Global Corvette', part of S2C2) concept predated the Type 26 program and was defunct by early 2010. The River class was strictly a political procurement solely designed to avoid (further) heavy contract penalties from a very poorly executed procurement program and to keep certain shipyards & their associated support infrastructure in business.

The Type 31e program is not a luxury; in light of the utter and total failure that the Type 26 program has become it is a vital necessity. And even that won't be able to really fill the gap left by the Type 26's crash & burn.

With regards as to the 1960s and 1970s, British shipyards and/or naval architects did actually 'win' a fair few orders from Canada and Australia during this period, ranging from letters of intent to signed contracts. Unfortunately just about all of them ultimately ended up being cancelled for economic and/or political reasons.


Don't think the Navantia F100/Hobart was a serious contender for the Australian Hunter contract whose primary mission was ASW as it did not have the expensive silenced HED propulsion system with the shaft mounted electric motors (no noisy gearboxes in HED mode) as did both FREMM and T26
Navanatia none the less believed, with a fair bit of justification, that they had the lock on the contract, F110 developmental delays notwithstanding. The F110 is actually a scaled down development of the Hobart design, Navanatia believing that it would save on time and development costs. Alas for them that proved somewhat wide of the mark. Eventually the damage to the company's reputation from various mishaps involving their hybrid designs worldwide (not to mention the continuing legal & political fallout) proved to be the deciding factor. The FREMM-IT proposal on the other hand in fell prey in part to it's own political woes, despite being arguably what the RAN actually needed.

With regards as to the Hunter design, only time will tell if the new radar and other systems can be indeed successfully integrated into a Type 26 based hull.
 
Last edited:
Top