A 21st Century Tribal Class ? - RN Type 26 refocused to Commonwealth Needs

[Thorvic]

Noticed in the new and on BAE Systems website that the Type 26 program has been revised as directed by the new UK Government to become the Global Combat Ship, where a common hull would be designed with an eye to modular style weapon system tailored to meet the customers needs.

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/SurfaceShips/PlatformsandProgrammes/GlobalCombatShip/index.htm

Apparently Lian Fox has been touting the program to various commonwealth navies as they like the RN have a need to replace their current Frigate fleet in the comming decade, Including Canada, Australia & New Zealand.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5593035&c=EUR&s=SEA

So could this be a new 'Tribal' class or 'Leander' class of general purpose frigates with a flexible design to satisfy the needs of the various roles the individual navies may require of their ships.

Should be interesting to see if this actually develops into any contracts, and how the final basic format will actually appear.

G

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Apparently Lian Fox has been touting the program to various commonwealth navies as they like the RN have a need to replace their current Frigate fleet in the comming decade, Including Canada, Australia & New Zealand.

Have they approached Mozambique? They are in the Commonwealth for what its worth (not much). BAES are saying the first nation approached is Brazil and I wouldn’t overplay the Commonwealth angle rather than the “Global” angle (as BAES say). In the case of Australia what makes this ship a chance for the SEA 5000 project is that BAES is a multinational that recently brought one of the two big domestic warship builders. Without this connection the Type 26 would likely be as competitive as the Type 23 was in the 1980s.

So could this be a new 'Tribal' class or 'Leander' class of general purpose frigates with a flexible design to satisfy the needs of the various roles the individual navies may require of their ships.

This is a classic example of how historical analogies fail. The Leander was never designed for use by other countries but sold well overseas because the UK in the late 50s, early 60s was still in the global third place for warship building. The primary element of their design that made them attractive was their quick build and low cost nature.

Rather than benefit from the economies of scale and well known excellence of the Royal Navy of the post war era the current program is very much an attempt to find buyers for UK skills that no longer have a customer base at home.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Rather than benefit from the economies of scale and well known excellence of the Royal Navy of the post war era the current program is very much an attempt to find buyers for UK skills that no longer have a customer base at home.

An attempt that is quite likely to fail, unfortunately, baring a miracle.

 

[uk 75]

The problems faced by the us in coming up with a post cold war frigate underline the problem. The rn has to use type 42 air defence ships for duties like Caribbean guardship surely a classic frigate role. Type 26 or whatever will be too few in number, too costly and probably the best of its type in the world.

 

[Grey Havoc]

This may not end at all well: Can Britannia Rule The Waves Again? (Ares blog)

The UK's new Type 26 could prove to be a radical change for Royal Navy sailors -- particularly in the way that they sleep.

Look below decks on HMS Victory, and you find hammocks hung lengthwise in the ship. The berths on the new Type 45 destroyer are the same way. Sailors believe that it's the best way to sleep on a moving ship. However, it's not conducive to providing usable space other than a narrow walkway.

The Type 26 is intended to conform to warship design rules promulgated internationally by Lloyds, rather than RN standards that have governed previous designs. The Lloyds rules are being adopted because the UK wants to enlist international partners to develop the Type 26 as the Global Combat Ship, but they are also more stringent. That could make different sleeping arrangements acceptable.

The RN is also worried about habitability -- because that affects recruiting and retention -- so the designers are considering abandoning Nelsonian tradition and adopting quadrilateral cabins with berths on four sides and a communal space in the center.

 

[pathology_doc]

My first call, if I was a Defence Minister or their advisor and I was looking at this, would be that everything which goes into this ship must be available on a bolt-on, off-the-shelf basis. The only thing new shoud be the hull. The slightest hint of having to wait for a new purpose-designed and purpose-built system to fit the ship would cause me to walk.

Mind you, after "Commonwealth" we should also insert "and those South American navies which have been buying British ships since the 19th Century."

current program is very much an attempt to find buyers for UK skills that no longer have a customer base at home.

F-20 Tigershark syndrome?

 

[RP1]

There was some material regarding T26 presented at Engine As A Weapon last week, plus the new design - which looks nothing like "Trigger" there.

That stuff about accommodation is hilariously out of date. Cabin based accommodation is used on T45. Mr Sweetman should look at more modern ships - hammocks have not been used for while.

The final decision on T26 machinery (CODLAD, CODLAG, IFEP) is to be made in November.

T26 will not be driven by new equipment. There may be equipment new to RN service in areas such as infrastructure, ship and machinery control, but that will just be because those systems are mature or whatever is MOTS/COTS at that time. The combat system will be drawn from the interim refitted T23s and T45 may be a source for many systems.

Oh, and that hull may not be so new, either. This is most definitely about using what you've got and *allowing* for what you are going to get.

RP1

 

[Grey Havoc]

There was some material regarding T26 presented at Engine As A Weapon last week, plus the new design - which looks nothing like "Trigger" there.

That stuff about accommodation is hilariously out of date. Cabin based accommodation is used on T45. Mr Sweetman should look at more modern ships - hammocks have not been used for while.

He wasn't talking about hammocks, he was refering to the facts that the modern day RN berths have kept the same orientation, shipwise.

The final decision on T26 machinery (CODLAD, CODLAG, IFEP) is to be made in November.

T26 will not be driven by new equipment. There may be equipment new to RN service in areas such as infrastructure, ship and machinery control, but that will just be because those systems are mature or whatever is MOTS/COTS at that time. The combat system will be drawn from the interim refitted T23s and T45 may be a source for many systems.

Oh, and that hull may not be so new, either. This is most definitely about using what you've got and *allowing* for what you are going to get.

RP1

If you're correct about the hull and systems, then I don't see that the Type 26 will have much of a future.

Another major problem that the Type 26 program already had is, that to date, AFAIK, there hasn't being a single sucessful warship built to the Lloyds rules. They might gotten away with this in the late 1990's or even early 2000's when COTS was all the rage, but not now.

 

[RP1]

He wasn't talking about hammocks, he was refering to the facts that the modern day RN berths have kept the same orientation, shipwise

My mistake. Note to self: Reading before rage. This has been discussed "a bit". Odd that they are choosing that - it is shown in the EAAW paper. It is possible to fit cabins with berths oriented fore and aft. The space saving with this arrangement is pretty small if you are careful with the layout on the more conventional arrangement, so I suspect this is to cut down the size slightly. An alternative is that they want to increase the number of people in one cabin, as one concern with cabins was the loss of the mess deck environment.

If you're correct about the hull and systems, then I don't see that the Type 26 will have much of a future.

They might gotten away with this in the late 1990's or even early 2000's when COTS was all the rage, but not now.

Erm... this is the only way the T26 is going to get built at all. There is no money for "new".

RP1

 

[pathology_doc]

Dammit, Horatio, just start building Leanders again.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Another major problem that the Type 26 program already had is, that to date, AFAIK, there hasn't being a single sucessful warship built to the Lloyds rules. They might gotten away with this in the late 1990's or even early 2000's when COTS was all the rage, but not now.

I do wish people would stop getting wound up about LR Naval Ship rules - they aren't commercial rules. They are based on the old Royal Navy rules, brought up to date and maintained by Lloyds for the excellent reason that they supervise the construction of more ships in a month than there are in the entire Navy. They have the data and technical knowledge to do it, the MoD doesn't. Simple as that. The fact that T26 is classed by Lloyds will not make it a merchant ship, any more than the fact that it will be built by BAE makes it an aeroplane.

 

[uk 75]

Next time you are in a library have a look at Jane's Fighting Ships (if they are able to afford one-not many can these days).

It is noticable how difficult it is to come up with a decent escort ship. The US is still scratching its head over LCS and where to go next. France and Italy are into the FREMM, but I suspect this will end up only building a few ships for financial reasons. Brazil had difficulty building its UK derived frigates. Only in the Far East (China,India, Korea and Japan) are escort ships being built in any numbers. Sorry I forgot the Germans, who are building yet another 4 ship class...

In other words the Type 26 is going to have its work cut out to get built in any numbers. Most of the likely customers are going to look East or build their own. Traditional purchasers of British ships are Argentina (!) Brazil (will probably build their own derivative) Chile (well catered for on the secondhand market) Pakistan (Now likely to buy Chinese) New Zealand and Australia (Likely to build a derivative) South Africa (Already built and in service).

 

[Hood]

Bit of a necromance but this seems to be the only thread we have on the Type 26 and the SEA 5000 programme.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-systems-type-26-frigate-wins-australian-frigate-bid/

The Australian government has awarded the $35 billion contract to BAE Systems to deliver nine Hunter Class frigates to replace the Anzac class from 2027.
I must admit mild surprise that the Type 26 was selected, it seems the factor that swung it was the Type 26's ASW capability.

 

[kitnut617]

And Canada has followed suit ----

https://nationalpost.com/news/british-design-selected-for-canadas-60b-warship-replacement-program-amid-concerns-about-winners-links-to-irving

 

[TomS]

The combination of the two wins seems like a huge win for British shipbuilding (or at least naval architecture, since the ships will actually be built in Australia and Canada). Quite a reversal from the lean decades when British industry couldn't sell warships to anyone.

 

[Hood]

That's an impressive double-win, especially since its been so long since British warships have been successful on the export market.

Still rankles though that both Australia and Canada are building more than the British are, none of this high-tier, low-tier nonsense. 15 Type 26s would be an RN Admiral's dream!

 

[kitnut617]

15 Type 26s would be an RN Admiral's dream!

Yeah! but we've got nothing else :'( and we're still trying to get the subs we got from the Brits into service

 

[kitnut617]

And now the Canadian order is on hold, an American company has protested the award ---

 

[Grey Havoc]

And it looks like it may actually stick: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-delay-citt-alion-1.4923364

 

[Hood]

Sigh. You wonder how any defence programme actually succeeds these days when every loser reaches for the lawyers in an attempt to overthrow the decision.

 

[MihoshiK]

Sigh. You wonder how any defence programme actually succeeds these days when every loser reaches for the lawyers in an attempt to overthrow the decision.

To be fair, if you loudly proclaim that one of your demands is that you want to go with a proven warship design because then all the kinks will have been worked out, and you go with the design that doesn't have a single hull in the water, people might wonder what else was going on behind the scenes...

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/g0fbqq

 

[riggerrob]

Sigh. You wonder how any defence programme actually succeeds these days when every loser reaches for the lawyers in an attempt to overthrow the decision.

Sad!
Lawyers can do more damage than the entire combined Warsaw Pact navies.

The problem is that Canadian politicians see every defense contract as an opportunity to buy union votes in the Maritimes or Quebec. Irving in New Brunswick, Levis and Montreal in Quebec and Sea Span in B.C.
Defence contracts are always delayed - by decades - as politicians squabble over crumbs.
Hulls may be welded in Canadian ship yards, but first-rate engines, weapons and electronics still have to be bought overseas.
Freshly welded hulls provide excellent photo opportunities for politicians seeking re-election.

Sailors quickly get punted to "priority last" when buying ships for the Royal Canadian Navy.

 

[TomS]

We didn't have an update on the Canadian program, so here it is. Contract awarded a year ago, after the courts found that one of the losing bidders didn't have standing to protest (Not sure how that works -- if anyone would have standing, surely it would be a party to the competition. But I'm no lawyer, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).

Canada Confirms Type 26 Design for Surface Combatant Program After Legal Tussle - USNI News

A Lockheed Martin-led industry team was selected for the final design of the Royal Canadian Navy’s future frigate after surviving a legal challenge by a rival contender. Officials in Ottawa confirmed that BAE Systems’ Type 26 Global Combat Ship will provide the template for the Canadian Surface...

news.usni.org

 

[aonestudio]

Complex warship design capability boost for Australia

More than two million digital artefacts and 90,000 documents are being transferred from the UK’s Type 26 frigate program in Scotland to Adelaide’s Osborne Naval Shipyard for the construction of the Hunter class frigate, the Royal Australian Navy’s next generation of anti-submarine warships.

www.baesystems.com

More than two million digital artefacts and 90,000 documents are being transferred from the UK’s Type 26 frigate program in Scotland to Adelaide’s Osborne Naval Shipyard for the construction of the Hunter class frigate, the Royal Australian Navy’s next generation of anti-submarine warships.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Seems to be an attempt to head of criticism over VLS numbers, albeit at the cost of the Mission Bay, Sonar Type 2087, and potentially the 5-inch (that is you want 128 VLS cells).

BAE Offers Evolved, Up-armed Hunter for Australia - Naval News

BAE is offering an up-armed, evolved variant of the Hunter class frigate to the Royal Australian Navy, as the Navy looks to increase its lethality.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Maro.Kyo]

We have dedicated threads for both the Hunter class and CSC. Post there please.