type 26 frigate

Yes, here we go a thoroughly enjoyable look at what might be:

https://youtu.be/E6ukz5jhXdY

I can see how that might mess up your hair, let alone your day.

Yes, here we go a thoroughly enjoyable look at what might be:

https://youtu.be/E6ukz5jhXdY

Raytheon has just tested a 5″/127mm Excalibur Round from a Mk 45 test mount.

Dave

Not sure if this has been noted elsewhere but just to keep this thread updated:

http://www.janes.com/article/54269/uk-mod-confirms-gun-for-type-26-dsei15-d1

No real surprise I dont think. Not sure the RN have, even today, quite shaken off the impression of Oto Melara derived from the issues experienced with the early Compatto mount hydraulics and its unlikely the MoD would’ve sprung for fancy Vulcano ammo in any quantity anyway. Ability to cross deck ammo with the yanks could be quite handy as well seeing they usually have the biggest stores in a given theatre!.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg6ipxb9HaU&feature=g-all-u&context=G224c14aFAAAAAAAAAAA

new vid from some def-expo

Found some interesting tidbits of info about Royal Navy programs, including about the general lines the program is following at the moment about main gun, propulsion and weapon system and stuff. I put it all here:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.it/2012/04/some-precious-snippets-of-info.html

I thought part of the new medium gun requirement was extended range guided munitions since the US 127mm munitions was cancelled surely it would leave the Oto 127/64 with Vulcano ammo the clear candidate..

Only happened in 2008 but I’d already forgotten. Contractors did not continue this or alternatives with own funds did they?

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the BAE Systems MK45 5 inch should be compatible with the Volcano munitions range.

I don’t think it will, volcano is a one piece round and the mk45 uses a seperate charge and round

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the BAE Systems MK45 5 inch should be compatible with the Volcano munitions range.

so BAE finds itself in a difficult position here. They have a 127mm gun they would love to sell, but the Babcock/Oto option is also a strong contender. Shall we hope that we thus get best in class (for the money) for as much equipment as possible? Everyone, do the budget dance.

I thought part of the new medium gun requirement was extended range guided munitions since the US 127mm munitions was cancelled surely it would leave the Oto 127/64 with Vulcano ammo the clear candidate..

At least the program is running but its a frightning gap between when the Type 23s were completed and when the Type 26 start to appear 😮

Agreed but haven’t the Type 23s had an easier life than they were intended to? Less North Atlantic operations and a less intensive workload overall? So hopefully they will be ok?

The first Type 26 I believe is to enter service in 2021 I expect this could slip back a couple of years but the first Type 23 to be decommissioned will be HMS Argyll in 2023.

Fully agree, lots of hot air, no real substance.

We are just the wrong side of the program calendar to get any real information, most of the stuff seen so far is to sell the concept and see if anybody else expresses and active interest. It would be nice, but there’s a way to go before main gate and the RN may revise its requirements before then or if another party want’s to join the program then we may see revisions to reflect their wishes.

At least the program is running but its a frightning gap between when the Type 23s were completed and when the Type 26 start to appear 😮

The capability configuration stands, however with the exception of some items like Sea Ceptor, Artisan, Sonar 2087 etc that will be “pulled through” (sound better than stripped and re-used?) or derived from ongoing developments some of the systems and weapons may actually put out to tender so BAE finds itself in a difficult position here. They have a 127mm gun they would love to sell, but the Babcock/Oto option is also a strong contender. Shall we hope that we thus get best in class (for the money) for as much equipment as possible? Everyone, do the budget dance.

Fully agree, lots of hot air, no real substance.

Frankly that interview is awful! Every serious question is dodged with extremely vague cover all answers. For example this question where the interviewer clearly states “Sea Ceptor aside” and asks about main gun, anti ship missile and TLAM capability is answered with a sound bite about Sea Ceptor and some vague stuff about capability upgrades to Type 23 and pull through of technology to Type 26:

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.

In other words no real decisions have been made probably due to lack of program budget guidance from the MOD and we can’t tell you about weapons as in the end the ship will probably be equipped with government furnished systems stripped from retiring Type 23 and “fitted for but not with space”…

http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=19558

Interview with Brian Johnson BAe systems

Comparing Type 26 with the FREMM, it occurs to me that for export (I don’t see the need for it in the RN),

Garn that’s the complication alright.

I was happily looking down my nose at suggestions of ‘Type 26 with extra’ thinking that RN would be better served buying more ‘Type 45 with less’ if their lordships were concerned by a lack of hulls. But ……… that does miss the point that this time we seem to actually be wanting to ‘do a Leander’ again and sell some hulls NEW overseas rather than wait and sell them secondhand.

IFF we are actually learning the modularity lesson this time then we should be laughing.

A position will take one MCG
choose from Oto 5 inch, Oto 3 inch, US 5 inch

B position will take 2 short silos
choose from CAAMM, VL Mica, ESSM, Barak

and 1 CIWS
choose from Phalanx, Goalkeeper, SeaRAM, Fast40, Mk57, etc

C Position will take 3 strike length silos
choose from Sylver, Mk41, Mk57

Main mast will take one mast
choose from short with Artisan, tall with SAMPSON, tall with Artisan, Aussie CEAFAR CEAMOUNT, etc

If instead we decide to go for a tailormade RN solution for each position (ideally each with its own proprietary databus) and demand that export customers fully fund any other integration then we will sell the sqrt of fnckall again

The silos behind the Phalanx appear to me to be 3 sets of 4+4 launchers their heightened position would suggest to me that these are strike length which is extremely promising. The question is what are they for?

I’ve yesterday written a piece that provides as much of an answer as it is possible to give at the moment:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.it/2012/04/type-26-type-45-anti-ship-missiles.html

For the export market I would say there are a range of options that could be offered. A few quick examples that seem logical off the top of my head.

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Comparing Type 26 with the FREMM, it occurs to me that for export (I don’t see the need for it in the RN), there might be takers for an ‘AAW-lite’ configuration. In that case, what would be the best option?

What radars could be fitted? APAR? The EADS 4-face TRS-4D? Herakles (improved)? Active EMPAR/KRONOS-NVER? Or SAMPSON? Aster 30 is obviously one possibility for the long-range SAM. Is SM-2 also realistic?

One has to consider integration, of course. The CMS has to work with the radar has to work with the missiles . . . . .