Type 26 Design Unveiled

I wrote a fairly long piece on Type 26 if you fancy popping over !

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/08/the-type-26-global-combat-ship-2/

Cheers if you do:)

Entirely idiotical…
Another chap who reads Lewis Page instead of Air International…

“It’s not built for the North Atlantic, not with that hull it ain’t, look at the flare”

Anyone explain this one???. The DS30 pedestals look a bit exposed to a heavy seaway and the freeboards’ a bit low at the stern, but, suggesting that its not suitable for trans-oceanic is mind-boggling?.

The bloke that wrote that article thinks surface ships, inlcuding aircraft carriers are obsolete because big missiles exist. Navies of the future will apparently only consist of nuclear submarines armed with cruise and ballistic missiles.

Idiot.

Total load of yarblockos, though. Bolshy great ones.

Really funny blog! related to the Royal Navy, Armed Forces of the UK in general and specifically the Type 26..

A snippet below

http://forbesblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/08/index.html

Do you understand your Prime Minister?
“Do you understand your Prime Minister?” the General asked me. “Have you seen the news from BAE Systems? It’s a picture of his new peaceship. The First Sea Lord says it’s designed for ‘humanitarian and disaster relief work around the world’, but just look at it. It’s not built for the North Atlantic, not with that hull it ain’t, look at the flare, but it’s painted North Atlantic grey to seem stealthy. If it’s to run around the world doing good as the SDSR tells us, the Prime Minister will want people to see it, won’t he? So it shouldn’t be coloured for stealth – it should be painted vividly in highly saturated fluorescent red, white and blue.”

.
.
“Yes,” I said, “but this is the Type 26, the new Global Combat Ship. It’s going to be in combat against pirates and drug runners. That’s why it’s grey. Not exactly stealth, but ‘low observability’. Look, it has a gun.”

“A gun!” he said. “You call that a gun? When I was a toddler I had a cowboy suit with a bigger gun than that. Matelots used to know how to cover their rear, but they can’t here with that, can they? A Somali in a skiff with an RPG could approach from astern and sink it.”

“Yes, if it could get near enough to use an RPG, but there’s a helicopter to look after the rear.” But only one, I thought, and that might be a Merlin even if they plan on an updated Lynx. And how often would a Merlin be serviceable in 2020?

“Five years ago, in the Gulf, HMS Cornwall had a chopper but it couldn’t even defend the cabin boy’s iPod. D’you see there are no rails? A rough sea swamping the deck and stealth will be destroyed by a trail of sailors washed overboard. No davits for the lifeboats. No lifeboats. I can see only two cells for launching missiles – perhaps there are more astern – but it really doesn’t look like a warship, does it? It’ s a peaceship. What’s it actually for?”

“I don’t know,” I said. “They plan on it coming into service in 2020, so …”

“2020!” he interrupted. “It’s a BAE Systems contract commissioned by the MoD, for heaven’s sake. And it’s for the Royal Navy, which is still governed by tradition. That means it will be years late, vastly over budget, and too expensive to fully equip. We’ve been sending ships to sea without their missiles ever since that lunatic Brown decided missiles were unnecessary so long as our ships were actually capable of putting to sea with missiles if they had any, so having no missiles because we have no money is the new tradition we must follow. Forget 2020. That was chosen for PR reasons because the first new carrier is due to go to sea then – without aircraft, of course, because we can’t afford the ones for which it was designed, and those will be tactically useless anyway.”

[QUOTE=Fedaykin;1923873]Certainly if we want to make it attractive to Australia then we need to demonstrate how the CEA Technologies’ CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT phased array radars can be installed with minimal trouble./QUOTE]

They will have no choice but to show how to incorporate AUSPAR, this is the next gen tech to follow on from CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT, otherwise we would simply not even bother to look at it. Auspar is a joint project between Aus and US (well really more Australian developed tech and the US have jumped on board) which although not specifically documented, will be in the requirements of Sea 5000. I don’t see it as an issue, it would be pretty simple to incorporate into an Aus design.

Here is some info on the project and the white paper that started the process

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea5000.html

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/

Cheers

Nice article to be found here, reveals some interesting info about compueter systems that haven’t been mentioned elsewhere (I think).

Well for me if the UK wants Type-26 to be the new Leander class in an export sense they have to get the modularity right! It needs to rival the MEKO for end customer choice of systems and weapons. If a customer wants a CODAD propulsion consisting of twin Caterpillar diesels or CODOG with MTU diesels and LM2500 then it should be easy. If the end customer wants ESSM fired from MK-48VLS, Exocet and Thales SMART-S radar rather then the UK standard fit we should offer it with a smile and at a competitive price. Certainly if we want to make it attractive to Australia then we need to demonstrate how the CEA Technologies’ CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT phased array radars can be installed with minimal trouble.

The fact is with the Type-42, Type-22 and Type 23 (I am intentionally leaving out Type-45 as we pulled out of the Horizon program) we designed ships built around the desired RN systems fit and little thought to making it attractive to foreign navies. That doesn’t mean the RN’s system fit desires should be ignored its just they shouldn’t dominate the design so much that it removes flexibility is choosing something different!

Sorry about that – quite how I managed to miss totoro’s post which said it all already is beyond me, LOL!

As totoro suggested maybe they will not be quad packed on the Type 26 I myself was expecting the Type 26 to have 32-48 Sea Ceptor missiles so the idea of 96 or even 192 seems like madness. It just seems odd to me that they would introduce a new quad packed system for the Type 23 then just a few years later a new one for the Type 26.

They’re going to be using single cell launchers, saves a whole lot of space and money using the small cold launch cells, that are all Sea Ceptor requires.

The only cells it could be quadpacked in are the 24 strike lengths at the front.

Pretty good in depth summary from a usually very well informed and dependable source here:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-type-26-takes-shape.html

Nice looking ship!

It gets better/stranger than that – there appear to be another 24 Sea Ceptor silos integrated into the port side of the midships/centreline funnel! So either they are individual silos for a total of 48 missiles (a decent, reasonable arsenal) or quad-packed with the frankly improbable number of 192!

As totoro suggested maybe they will not be quad packed on the Type 26 I myself was expecting the Type 26 to have 32-48 Sea Ceptor missiles so the idea of 96 or even 192 seems like madness. It just seems odd to me that they would introduce a new quad packed system for the Type 23 then just a few years later a new one for the Type 26.

Nice looking ship!

Has it been confirmed how many Sea Ceptor missiles the Type 26 will have? The Type 23 as seen this video clearly shows a total of 12 silos each quad packed with CAMM a total of 48 missiles. http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

In this latest photo it appears that there are 12 silos either side of the CIWS a total of 24. As all the images I have seen of Sea Ceptor have shown it quad packed including the footage of the Type 23 then it would be logical to me that it would be the same for the Type 26. If all of this was the case that would mean a total of 96 Sea Ceptor missiles per Type 26 a huge increase over the current 32 carried by the Type 23 at present.

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/digitalmedia/mdaw/mdk2/~edisp/~extract/BAES_090238~1~staticrendition/original.jpg

It gets better/stranger than that – there appear to be another 24 Sea Ceptor silos integrated into the port side of the midships/centreline funnel! So either they are individual silos for a total of 48 missiles (a decent, reasonable arsenal) or quad-packed with the frankly improbable number of 192!

Spearfish? That is a heavy weight torpedo only used on the submarines and needs a 533mm torpedo tube.

I presume they well pull the 324mm launchers for Stingray off the Type 23 as they retire for ASW.

I think Jonesy was implying that if there was a high value surface target then the RN would send an SSN to take it out as that is one of their main roles these days.

Spearfish!. If its not a high value target then FASGW(H) from the embarked chopper or the main gun (especially if we end up with the OTO127LW) if the tactical environment allows.

Spearfish? That is a heavy weight torpedo only used on the submarines and needs a 533mm torpedo tube.

I presume they well pull the 324mm launchers for Stingray off the Type 23 as they retire for ASW.

i remember reading that quadpacking will be used on existing platforms, to maximize space. meaning type 23 and type 45. type 26, however, will use simpler and cheaper, one missile per cell launchers.

Also note the pretty large VLS section near the exhaust. All in all it may point to 48 sea ceptors. 96 would be unrealistically too many, really.

So, 24 Sea Ceptor modules

Has it been confirmed how many Sea Ceptor missiles the Type 26 will have? The Type 23 as seen this video clearly shows a total of 12 silos each quad packed with CAMM a total of 48 missiles. http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

In this latest photo it appears that there are 12 silos either side of the CIWS a total of 24. As all the images I have seen of Sea Ceptor have shown it quad packed including the footage of the Type 23 then it would be logical to me that it would be the same for the Type 26. If all of this was the case that would mean a total of 96 Sea Ceptor missiles per Type 26 a huge increase over the current 32 carried by the Type 23 at present.

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/digitalmedia/mdaw/mdk2/~edisp/~extract/BAES_090238~1~staticrendition/original.jpg

I think the point is that Harpoon is on its way out, and a new VL missile (possible dual role anti-ship and land attack) to fit in the strike length cells. Not sure if that’d mean that its intended to be used instead of Tomahawk as well.

plus harpoon III, if it is ever bought, is designed to be VL launched.

So, 24 Sea Ceptor modules plus 24 “strike lenght” VLS, either MK41 or Sylver, and no visible Harpoon launchers. Its a decent load, but what are they going to use for the anti ship mission?

According to wikipedia (make of that what you will), then the Perseus is a possible contender.