Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

[marktigger]

i find it strange that its fine for one vessel to be noisy and another to be as silent as possible. Yes the ASW vessel needs the advantage but surely making the AAW silent to makes it harder for them to be detected and tracked by a submarine. Same for other vessels to.

[shark bait]

The acoustic optimizations are to isolate the sensor from the hull as much as possible.

The AAW destroyer doesn't have any sensitive acoustic equipment so there is no point isolating everything.

Its clearly an expensive task, even the decks have to be isolated from the hull, unlike other platforms where they can be welded in place.

There is usually some fancy hull work to increase the cavitation speed, but there is little point reducing cavitation on an AAW destroyer that is sitting close to a big cavitating monster, like a carrier.

Its a lot of expensive work that benefits an AAW destroyer very little.

The final expensive bit is isolating the engines from the shaft and hull, which the T45 does too.

[seaspear]

There might be a question of the effectiveness of the Arleigh Burkes towed sonar that has more recently been added if the ship was not originally designed for a high level of accoustic stealth and subsequent noise from the ship itself hinders detection abilities

[shark bait]

Better than the Royal Navy's destroyers, but probably not as good as the T26 will be.

Its just a single towed array too, not paired with a variable depth sonar, which further limits its detection ability. I think its a bit of a rush to increase their ASW capabilities after years of neglect, and dithering over the LCS ASW module.

In the end they will be able to put a lot of sensors in the water around the carrier, which increases detection chances, clearly a good thing.

Again I further despair at how easy the Americans have added a second tier ASW capability to their AAW destroyers, and yet we have 5 ASW optimized T23's that are worse than the Burkes at detecting subs because we removed their sonar, which are soon to be replaced by a T31 with even poorer capabilities.

The T26 has better be a miracle weapon!!

[seaspear]

Was there any consideration given to improving the asw capability of the Daring class ?

[jimthelad]

No room in the back. You would need to use a side boom for spool and recovery and that limits speed and turn rate. Also, the flow noise around the hull would interfere with accoustics and vibration on the boom might also cause trouble. If you have a tail, it needs to be at the back of the ship. There is at least one project being mooted where a deck mounted mortar fire gps guided sonobuoys out to a range of 20km. It would use a UAV or SHF radio to get alert and transmission but would need to then access a dedicated data link via UAV to get raw data. This could fit into a mini ISO container. It went by the acronym of WASSS.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a deck mounted mortar fire gps guided sonobuoys out to a range of 20km. It would use a UAV or SHF radio to get alert and transmission but would need to then access a dedicated data link via UAV to get raw data. This could fit into a mini ISO container. It went by the acronym of WASSS.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. Of course the RN just decided to phase out its UAVs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The image happens to be of a mine hunter, but you could build these in good numbers if coastal ASW were to be a priority:
http://zonwar.ru/images/news4/news-633_3.jpg

- the WASSS minicontainer onto the lower open deck aft; the upper can be used to launch and recover UAVs
- the gun in front of the bridge could be replaced by an AMOS automatic mortar, able to persecute subs out to 10 km and relating the ship's GPS coordinates, on the move, to the acquired sub's coordinates (and predicting the direction and speed, a bit like NLAW aiming a couple of meters in front of the target - which can't accelerate fast enough, but can try to stand on the break, to save itself, just to become an easier target for the second launcher).

Of course a T26 would not risk itself by going very close to a broken coast line, too many good hiding places there for a sub. And a single helicopter can't check them all out, so its effectiveness compared to open sea would be much degraded.

So-oo, we'll just forget about littoral ASW. too difficult.

[Ron5]

The image happens to be of a mine hunter, but you could build these in good numbers if coastal ASW were to be a priority:
http://zonwar.ru/images/news4/news-633_3.jpg

- the WASSS minicontainer onto the lower open deck aft; the upper can be used to launch and recover UAVs
- the gun in front of the bridge could be replaced by an AMOS automatic mortar, able to persecute subs out to 10 km and relating the ship's GPS coordinates, on the move, to the acquired sub's coordinates (and predicting the direction and speed, a bit like NLAW aiming a couple of meters in front of the target - which can't accelerate fast enough, but can try to stand on the break, to save itself, just to become an easier target for the second launcher).

Of course a T26 would not risk itself by going very close to a broken coast line, too many good hiding places there for a sub. And a single helicopter can't check them all out, so its effectiveness compared to open sea would be much degraded.

So-oo, we'll just forget about littoral ASW. too difficult.

What if the T26 carried an UUV or two (or three) and its handlers, in its mission bay and sent them inshore to look for lurking subs?

You know, just like RN will be trialling off Scotland in Unmanned Warrior later this year.

[Ron5]

The Type 45's lack of an ASW tail has nothing to do with stern design. Their job is AAW. Can't mess around with a tail miles away from a TF and still protect the HVU's from air & missile threat. Jeesh.

[ArmChairCivvy]

just like RN will be trialling off Scotland in Unmanned Warrior later this year.

I hope they do it on the West Coast, to get a real feel for the difficulty of it (even there the "normal" depths are quickly reached away from the shoreline... but as a test run / beginners' course - strictly peaking about littoral ASW only - yes).

[jimthelad]

The Type 45's lack of an ASW tail has nothing to do with stern design. Their job is AAW. Can't mess around with a tail miles away from a TF and still protect the HVU's from air & missile threat. Jeesh.

Kind of goes without saying! I was merely pointing out the difficulties ( many and varied as previously stated). With that kind of miopicity you will go far up the (corporate) ladder

[Ron5]

The Type 45's lack of an ASW tail has nothing to do with stern design. Their job is AAW. Can't mess around with a tail miles away from a TF and still protect the HVU's from air & missile threat. Jeesh.

Kind of goes without saying! I was merely pointing out the difficulties ( many and varied as previously stated). With that kind of miopicity you will go far up the (corporate) ladder

"miopicity" ??

Anyhoo, way up the corporate ladder already. Well beyond your pay grade

[seaspear]

My suggestion about asw potential for the type 45 was about addressing the lack of asw ships ,certainly as a carrier escort these duties would be carried out by the type 26 , but the type 45 may be called apon for other duties and having asw abilities of that level to attend where there was not a type 26 nearby could be useful.

[jimthelad]

My suggestion about asw potential for the type 45 was about addressing the lack of asw ships ,certainly as a carrier escort these duties would be carried out by the type 26 , but the type 45 may be called apon for other duties and having asw abilities of that level to attend where there was not a type 26 nearby could be useful.

AFAIK even though noise reduction and isolation did take place, it is not in the same level as an ASW ship. The stern and transom would need a redesign for towed sonar and the prop wash might also interfere. But, if it carries Merlin and keeps its speed down (to use bow sonar) it isn't entirely shabby. That said we need it doing it's day job protection Big Liz and co.

[jimthelad]

"Anyhoo, way up the corporate ladder already. Well beyond your pay grade "

Congrats, very probably true unfortunately. Might I suggest a decent education, a better lexicon, and some manners be procured when your extensive professional development budget is negotiated next year. After all, you need to spend your bonus on something.

[ArmChairCivvy]

and some manners

Over here we have something that's called an informed exchange of views. It is not quite the same as "making pleasant conversation" as we do not need to steer away from controversies (where would the value-add be, were we to do that?). However, as we all (?) only have access to public domain information (and if otherwise, can't mention the specifics) there really is no need to be confrontational all the time.
- or is the Presidential campaign trail over there in the good old USA something that could be called an informed exchange of views?
- if that is the case, then the cultural differences are probably insurmountable (in which case, I rest my case, and we just carry on BAU)

Now, I need not speculate who has made it up the corporate ladder to the PR or legal department, but those excuses should be in the wide circulation, rather than try to redirect the opinion that many observers (here) have formed over decades, from multiple sources

[Ron5]

or is the Presidential campaign trail over there in the good old USA something that could be called an informed exchange of views?

You do know they televise Prime Minister question time in the US. Right?

[dmereifield]

Quite a few commentators seem to feel that the T26 will be underarmed for a vessel of it size (and anticipated cost) - comparable US and Russian ships (as well as those of European navies) have considerably more VLS (2 or 3 x more) as well as additional canister/box launched missiles and/or torpedoes.

Is this a genuine criticism of the T26?
Thanks

[shark bait]

European frigates certainly have more torpedo's because the T26 doesn't have any, relying on helicopter delivered weapons.

It certainly has less missiles than an American Destroyer, but compared to everything else it weighs up well. More ASM and more SAM than FREMM and LCS for example.

I suppose to be accurate it doesn't have any ASM, but it has the capacity for 24.

[dmereifield]

Thanks. To be more precise, I guess my question is whether the T26 is suitably armed and capable for the tasks we will utilise it for, or should it be better armed given its size and cost?

[marktigger]

we can't really answer that till they are built as systems may change during design/build

[dmereifield]

we can't really answer that till they are built as systems may change during design/build

If it doesn't change, are you happy with it as designed now?

[shark bait]

48 CAMM, 24 cruise missiles, and a 5 inch gun, seems well armed to me.


Those 48 CAMM cells can be used for CAMM which is clearly for AAW, but also has ASuW modes to be explored, a should be able to accept spear missiles in the future giving a land attack mode.

The 24 cruise missiles can be used for land attack or anti surface, or quad packing in more CAMM or spear.

There is clearly a lot of flexibility to be exploited with its missile load too, with a maximum load of 148! On paper its a great design, here's hoping its exploited in service.

[marktigger]

paper & animations are cheap I'll hold my judgement till the last one is in service