How Lethal Is UK's Type 26? A Super Frigate of the Future
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Foortages from the UK Defence Journal: www.youtube.co...
Check them out for more footages of Royal Navy warships. E.g. Type 26 drone footage: • HMS Glasgow
Book Recommendations:
1. U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History www.amazon.com...
2. Naval Warfare: A Global History since 1860 www.amazon.com...
3. Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of US and Soviet Submarines www.amazon.com...
4. Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 www.amazon.com...
5. Elizabeth’s Navy: Seventy Years of the Postwar Royal Navy www.amazon.com...
The above links are affiliate links, which means I will make a small commission if you click them and make a purchase, at no extra cost to yourself :) You will be supporting me through the purchase, thank you!
The Type 26 is the next-generation anti-submarine warfare frigates of the Royal Navy, known as the City class. This is a behemoth of a frigate, at over 7,000 tons standard displacement, but why does it have to be so big?
Want to tip me? www.buymeacoff...
Tags: Type 31, Type 23 Duke class, Royal Navy, Global Combat Ship, Future Surface Combatant, Hunter class, Canadian Surface Combatant, Type 997 Artisan radar, Sea Ceptor, Common Anti-air Modular Missile, CAMM, British military, HMS Glasgow, BAE System
They build them in-country because it's worth more than the jobs. It's to maintain the operational status of the shipyards to ensure that the UK does not lose critical and highly specialized Navy shipbuilding talent, intellectual knowledge, tooling, and the shipyard itself. War ship delivery can take over a decade and if other countries have maxed out their ship-building capacity then the UK must rely on its own now-defunct facilities. By the time the yards are spun up and the workers are reemployed it would be years before any construction could even begin leaving current units with outdated and inadequate systems. Basically, the UK can't afford NOT to have continuous warship production. It's just the price of being a major world power.
This class will be the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy for the middle of this century with 15 ships on order with the Irving shipyard in Halifax.
The problem is the cost over-runs, that have now caused the total cost of the program to almost double, from the initial cost estimate of C$35 billion to now near C$65 billion. And, I will make a prediction: once this program is complete and the last frigate comes off the ways, it will have ballooned to C$90-100 billion. A colossal waste of taxpayers' money...
(I won't even mention the Arctic class patrol vessels: 6 vessels with a cost of C$5 billion).
@@SailorGerry I don't trust their acccounting and here's why: The Canadian goverment is being pressured by ALL off our allies to increase real defence spending so they can point to the GAZILLION$ and say WOW! We're spending CRAZY amounts! Note that they generate the niumbers. One way to inflate the numbers is to add the entire cost of these ships over their 45 year life span including future refits, maintenance, etc and do it in 2050 dolllars. I suspect that is what you are seeing here. Thee Brits and Australians are building the same ships for a fraction of what the Canadian government is stating they're going to spend. Something smells fishy and it's not about Canadian productivity. The Aussies are starting from scratch, as well.
Ten bucks sez this is theatre so that they don't have to real meet spending obligations.
If we actually manage 15 I will be surprised, the conservatives live to cut back on military spending
Yeah it's basically a frigate in name only (like many European frigates). Conceptually it's essentially a Type 45 but designed for ASW instead of air defence. In terms of cheaper and potentially expendable general purpose frigates, that's really the role of the Type 31, although a lack of smaller ships is a serious problem that has been identified with the Royal Navy currently.
The RN is too small now to have generally expendable ships - every ship will need to fight and be properly capable of going to war. I don't believe we should be building the T31 with the number of hulls that are present in the fleet.
@@tomriley5790 How long, however, before the MoD start explaning that both the 26s and the 31s are designed 'for, but not with' a host of weapons systems?
@@tomriley5790 obviously no blue water ship is truly "expendable", but it's also naive to think that in a modern combat environment you won't have casualties. If a mission requires fewer capabilities it's always going to be better to send a cheaper, more easily replaceable ship. Many missions the RN will operate won't require a ship as sophisticated as a Type 26 or Type 45, so ships like the Type 31 absolutely have a place there.
@@tomriley5790
The future security of our nations should never be left to good fortune or the kindness of superpowers and aspiring superpowers.
CANZUK should increase defence spending to 5% of GDP.
There should be more Type 31. As with the QE class, Types 45, 26, Astute and Dreadnought.
A Division (4 units) of large battlecruisers would be very useful as would eight heavy cruisers.
Big, fast, powerful missile launch platforms that can dominate the air, sea and subsurface for hundreds of miles radius.
I’d like to see ICBM capable Battleships, a Division of four units.
But if only one class could be expanded it would be Astute.
the uk is expected to field 5 extra type 32 frigate and uparmed river class opv that would mean the uk have 10 general purpose frigate that can do low intensity asm and anti air mission and 8 armed offshore patrol vessel that has blue water ranging capability great for anti piracy missions and low threat patrol duties that will be the low fleet of the uk royal navy freeing up the high fleet that will be 6 upgraded type 45 and 8 type 26 escorting 3 bay class Dock landing ships 2 albion class amphibious warfare ship and 2 queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier and 7 replenishment and tanker support fleet this will give the uk actual teeth in a real fight.
The RN should develop an arsenal ship that is a drone ship, 12 crew to run it, tiny wheelhouse and flush deck with hundreds of launchers. Missile can be fired remotely from a type 45 (the lead) boat. a small cat and trap for radar plane and some small refuelling aircraft, cheap as chips with devastating fire, however BAE are slow at building ships and are not very bright.
Subscribed! I love this kind of stuff :-)
Australia's Hunter class frigates which is a modified version of the T26 has already begun construction . Personally, I believe Australia should remove the planned multi purpose missions bay in favour of an additional 32 VLS cells above it's current position bringing the ships total VLS to 64. I understand that the missions bay allows more ships available for fulfilling humanitarian tasks but Australia has our two LHD's and a large fleet of 38 Globemaster planes for humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the VLS segment at the front of the ship looks like it has room to fit and additional 16 making the total VLS 48. this could be achieved at the back of the ship superstructure bringing the total VLS to 96. so potentially 64-98VLS. obviously I'm no ship builder but I definitely think the federal government should look into expanding the Hunter classes Anti air warfare and anti surface combatant capabilities instead of just focusing on anti submarine warfare. otherwise great ship
That would be a terrible idea. The multi mission bay is its best feature. Nobody wants it for Humanitarian missions only.
It is a huge space for UUVs and USVs which are the future of ASW. The Aussie ships should fit 24 CAMM missiles where the RN ships have them just in front of the multi mission bay.
Actually BAE Systems has now offered an ‘upgunned’ missile variant of the Hunter Class to the Australian Navy by removing the multi mission bay and inserting a 64 VLS system & four quad NSM launchers - giving it a total of 96 VLS. The offer was made because of concerns about the lack of weaponry in a dangerous strategic environment in the Indo Pacific
The RAAF doesn’t have 38 C17’s. They’ve got 8.
@@Louis-ej1lxwell it is an option
How many globe master planes ??? 38 ??? I'm calling bullshit on that one.....
T26 makes me both proud and angry. Proud because I think they actually are very good ships. Angry because had the government not messed up - even paying to delay the deliveries many more of the royal navy's future ships could have been T26s and they would likely have been ready early enough to have been a candidate for the US Navies Constitution class which I believe it would have won and would have led to the class becoming one of the most successful (numerically) in the world. The other reason it makes me angry is that despite this existing we're still building the T31 and T32... which are frankly embarrassing all should have been built of the T26s. You missed the whole point of the discussion of the economics and jobs discussion in the press - the point is that the ships and that investment is being spent in Scotland and what benefits it gets from the British government.
The US rarely if ever buy foreign ships or aircraft, they tend not to support other countries weapons industries unless they have absolutely no alternative.
@@eraldorh the Constitiution class was specifically a class of frigates already in service - it was an Italian class that won, the T26 was too slow to get in the water.
I completely agree with you as I have thought that the Cameron Administration should have just procured the full number of T26s instead of wasting money on trying to save money in terms of surface combatant investment. Instead of having an ample number of yet to be properly armed frigates the RN is going to have close to half the number of dedicated ASW warships plus a woefully small number of poorly armed and fitted for, but not with Frigates labelled as “General Purpose and Adaptable”. To me this just the excuse conveniently used as all ways for defence funding cuts.
@@tomriley5790 Its also 8000 tons so why not just build a burke?
@@TP-ie3hj Well why not anyway....
The Type 26 is underarmed. It should have 48 Mk 41 VLS tubes in the front and a more sophisticated radar system. Russia and China have hypersonic weapons. The Type 997 Artisan is a great upgrade for the type 23 frigate, but is insufficient for a new 8-10,000 ton frigate. The Australian Hunter class will at least have 32 Mk 41 VLS tubes as the X-Band, S-Band, and L-Band CEAFAR2 AESA radar. The Canadian Surface Combatant will instead have the AN/SPY-7 S-Band and X-BAND radar and 24 Sea Ceptor missiles along with 32 MK 41 VLS tubes. The American Constellation class will.be an enlarged FREMM class, although smaller than the type 26. Nonetheless, it will have 32 VLS tubes and a three-faced AESA radar, the AN/SPY-6v3.
Its not really a air defence Ship. Like The type 45, which is now going to carry, 48 Aster 30's as well as 24, Sea Ceptors.
Woah. That would be INCREDIBLY easy to swarm then. I mean for example 1 Typhoon can carry 12 spear 3's then another follow in with a GBU.@@To.Si.Ma.
Thats why we have the Type 45's for air defense and they are also being upgraded to carry more missiles. These are far more focussed on Anti Submarine warfare with some general purpose capabilities and I think ASW is critical for us as a Navy. Still we need more than 8!!!!!
these ships are very well armed especially for their role, with 72 VLS , 1x MK 45 5inch gun, 2x Ciws, 2x 30mm or 20mm bofors i think , thats a good weapon loadout and its meant unlike the Type 45 to protect itself and ships very close to it, the Type 45 is an area air defence destroyer, whilst this is yes an antisub frigate but is more than capable of holding its own in combat. and the type 31 are useful too, we should of got 10 type 31 but perhaps in the future we might , but 5 is a nice number, i know we need to get more ships and grow our numbers in the navy but these newer ships will mean that actually we are more capable and more operationally available for more of the time, so rather than a ship spending 50% of a year in maintenace or refit ( not actualy just an example ) these new frigates will spend 20% of their time in maintenance or refit, that is a major difference.
They appear to be a very good ship, however they definitely lack a sufficient number of VLS. This means they will not be capable go up again the likes of the PLAN ships that will out number them in both hulls and number of VLS available per hull.
They require at least double the current VLS capacity to make the huge price tag worth while.
Australia is ordering 9 of these to replace the aging ANZAC Class and they will be named Hunter Class. They will be modified for the RAN but will still lack sufficient VLS capacity to meet the current needs and will have no chance to meet future needs.
For the UK this is a very good frigate as it's primary purpose is Anti Submarine Warfare so focussed on what it should do best with some Anti air capabilities, and with a MK 41 launcher so no issues other than we should have at least 5 more than the the 8 we are getting. Our Type 45's are the real Anti Air warfare destroyers and again are perfect for the job so overall a good mix.
For Australia, I agree and wish they had got the initial design sorted as modifing the Type 26 making it heavier is an issue but they should have added another MK 41 launcher to give it a much bigger punch by removing the mulit-role mission ba. This was put forward by BAE as the advanced Hunter...I just cannot understand our current western governments as they just cannot make the right decisions for defense and never seem to get a procurement right!!! constantly over budget, late etc. etc. whilst our enemies are plowing ahead.
They don't lack VLS for it's intended role, this isn't an Anti Air Warfare ship, it's primarily role is Anti Submarine Warfare (where it excels with it's advanced towed sonar and 2 helicopter bays) it then has decent VLS numbers and armament. For the UK they will be getting the Type 83 Destroyer as their AAW Ship which will have reportedly 128 VLS, the current AAW Ships Type 45 have 48 currently but being upgraded to 72 each - The thing with Australia is they're trying to make the ship do everything and making it worse for at each thing, they're adding VLS systems to 90 I think but taking away the Submarine capability and 5" Naval gun.
They are ASW specialist frigates first and foremost, sure they are also multi mission capable but they were designed from the outset to be specifically ASW frigates, everthing else come second, this is something the Aussies seem to have forgotton when they tried to turn it into an air-defence destroyer.
Forgetting what China have (as we don't know anything about them), what is the best all round multi mission ship on the planet at the moment?? The flight 3 Arleigh Burke. With 96 MK41 VLS, a hull and towed sonar, spy 6 radar and Aegis combat system it is by far the most powerful warship on the seas.
The Type 26 COULD be better. If you we're to remove all the sea ceptor VLS and replace them with MK41 VLS you would have 72 MK41 VLS. I think you might actually be able to fit 32 MK41 behind the funnel where there is currently 24 sea ceptor. If so that would take the number of VLS cells to 80.
If then we we're to give the ship an upgraded, more composite version of the sampson radar, which is still one of the best in the world for tracking incoming aircraft and anti ship missiles, in my opionion you would have the best destroyer on the planet. It will already be the best ASW ship out there, and with a world class radar, 80 VLS, a multi mission bay to deploy USV's and everything else it can fit in there, the Royal navy would have a world class escort that should replace the type 45 AND the type 23. Use the type 31 for chasing pirates and skiffs, and this bad boy for long patrols and escorting the carriers.
Yeah but the flight 3 Arleigh Burke costs 1 billion each
The ABs are shit. They are fucking shit. They are about as complex a design as the old T22 frigates, have ginormous crews, cost extortionate amounts, are unsuitable for ASW as they are noisy ships, only the latest have hangars and the radar fit is shit until SPY 6.
The T26 cannot replace T45, it's too small with not enough space for the radar- look at the issues the Aussies are facing.
MK 41 is bigger than CAMM cells. At the front of the ship it's either 32 MK 41 or 24 MK41 and 24 CAMM. The rear CAMM silos don't have enough space for MK41. Much better to just order T83 as a large cruiser type ship.
So you think we should scrap plans for Type 83 ?
@@Belisarius1967 Yeah i do. With a navy as small as ours today i don't think we need type 88, type 26, type 31 and type 32 (if it comes to fruition) Why not just have a high end surface vessel and a low end one. Scrap the Rivers when they are due and replace them with type 31's. It makes sense to me and would be much simpler, cheaper and quicker to build.
BAE has just done a design study on a 96VLS version of the type 26. could be a good candidate for the type 88 then use the 80 vls version to replace the type 23 as an ASW vessel with some teeth, replace rivers with type 31 and replace the type 32 with type 31 and we would have a strong fleet.
We would like to watch a video on Indian navy's Upcoming Nilgiri frigate!
And try to compare it to modern frigates across world!
I am writing on behalf of the UK Defence Journal regarding a matter of copyright infringement we believe has occurred involving our commissioned drone footage.
We have noticed that you have used our commissioned drone footage in your recent video content. While we appreciate your interest in our work, we must clarify that this footage is the property of the UK Defence Journal and is protected by copyright laws. It is essential to note that the usage of our copyrighted footage without prior permission violates these laws, irrespective of the platform or purpose for which they are used. As such, we are unable to grant implicit or retroactive permission for the use of our commissioned drone footage.
We request that you promptly remove our footage from your video to avoid any legal complications that might arise due to this infringement. Please understand that our aim is not to stifle creativity or restrict the sharing of information, but rather to protect the interests of the creators we commission and our own rights as a publication.
If you wish to use our footage in the future, we would be happy to discuss licensing agreements or other legal avenues through which you can utilise our material while respecting copyright laws. We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and hope for a swift resolution. Should you have any questions or if you require further clarification, do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
Thank you for your understanding.
Hi UK Defence Journal, I appreciate you reaching out. I am already in correspondence with your editor George Allison on the matter, and he has agreed a way forward in the form of crediting by me to UK Defense Journal and himself for the footage. Let me know if this is acceptable to you. Cheers
Realy I like this powerful super frigate
that's a good looking ship!
Loved the video, it was very informative.
One thing you maybe misunderstood however; all arguments about how many jobs these ships provide have very little to do with if these ships are a good decision economically. Instead, these arguments are put forward to counter Scottish nationalists that seek to leave the union. They are there to show that should Scotland leave, these ship building jobs (which are usually Scottish) will disappear also.
Other than that, I think it was an excellent video, thanks
Canada decided to call them destroyers.
Thats a big ship.
Has the culprit who sabotaged the Glasgow by cutting electrical cables being discovered . Will this effect follow on orders if this continues .
affordable & disposable? Not likely. Long delays in getting into service,also means long shore time upgrading. In Australia, we are already looking at upgrading from the first block of 3 (out of 9), so, well we will see.
The current estimates for Canada's version of this ship is sitting at $90 billion CA for 15 frigates, now some of that is for spare parts but regardless that's $6billion per ship and we haven't even started cutting steel for it yet
Irving shipyard is expected to start cutting steel next year, but they have a big problem, the ship is too big for the yard to be able to build it, they are asking for an additional $300million CA for renovations and new equipment so that they can build them.
For reference the US Constellation Class is coming in a little over $1 billion US each, which is about $1.35 billion CA, for a similar ship. China's Type054 frigate, again similarly equipped and are already on the B variant, their fleet of 50 ships will cost them approx $23 billion CA
The Canadian Surface Combatant will be the biggest disaster in the history of the Canadian military
The Constellation Class us a true frigate. The CSC is essentially a destroyer being called a frigate.
@@gryph01 and yet the Const. Class has more firepower then the CSC
@@danlegris387 It really doesn't... Yale a look at the specs again.
BTW, the CSC will be carrying tomahawks.
@@gryph01 The US Const. Class, 32 Mk 41 VLS cells and 16 canister launchers, the CSC 24 Mk 41 VLS cells and 8 canister launchers.
The cost to create the infrastructure needed to build ships of this size is rolled into the price of the Canadian Global combat ship. The US already has the infrastructure needed. The US ship is also much smaller and less capable than the global combat ship which is more like a destroyer in size and capability. Canada has a role to play in the future if the security of the world.
This is equivalent to 30-40 mk41 vls so noting crazy
It's not ment to go toe to toe with other ships she is a dedicated ASW ship with a VLS because it's basically mandatory .
It's amazing how someone from the Chinese Military knows a lot about the Royal Navy , I'm also an Economist and don't forget all of the Chinese military hardware is made in China !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Canadian design team added 3000 tons more in extra weapons lol
in the Type 26 future multi mission frigate program the 24-cell VLS for the Sea Ceptor surface-to-air missile should be swapped in favour of the proven Mk41 & Mk48 VLS or the SYLVER A90 VLS for that matter . . . it's nowhere as versatile as the Mk41 & Mk48 . . . and RIM-162B ESSM semi-active radar guided surface-to-air missile instead of the Sea Ceptor . . . it's time Royal Navy realize & stop making one mistake after another . . . for e.g. Royal Navy's QE2 class 82,632 ton (86,243 loaded) multi mission (STOVL) aircraft carrier powered by iFuelCell2™ M-FEP system . . . a brilliantly designed & (British) built carrier with certain flaws that are no longer less forgiving . . . so much so that the navy is thinking of selling the two STOVL carriers to interested customers like India & Brazil . . .
Two MK41 ? Thats wrong
16.20 the decade of construction was political.
Those type 31s are what you want in a naval battle but not very relevant compared to Americans massive fleets
You're using my video without permission.
Apologies. I do believe my use falls under fair use purpose of commentary though, but I should have asked you first regardless
@@NavalEnthusiast I appreciate your prompt response and understanding regarding the use of my video footage in your recent RUclips video. However, I want to clarify why I believe the usage does not fall under the 'fair use' doctrine.
Firstly, it appears that my footage contributes a substantial part of your video. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is one of the factors considered in fair use cases. While fair use supports commentary, the doctrine doesn't necessarily cover extensive or integral usage of copyrighted material.
Secondly, it seems that my footage is used primarily as a background for your video, and it's unclear whether it contributes significantly to any transformative purpose, such as commentary or criticism. The purpose and character of your use would likely need to substantially alter or add new meaning to my original work for it to potentially fall under fair use.
Lastly, your video is being monetised, and while commercial use doesn't automatically negate fair use, it can weigh against it, especially if it appears that the copyrighted material is being used mainly to drive traffic or generate revenue rather than for transformative purposes.
Please understand that this issue is important to me, not only because of my rights as a content creator but also due to the potential impact on the market for my work.
I would like to kindly request that you remove my footage from your video or discuss potential licensing options with me.
Thank you for your understanding.
Best,
@@georgeallison3264 Can you email these points to me (just copy and paste), and we can continue this conversation by email?
navalreviewer@gmail.com
I still do believe my use represent fair use, and I will articulate why in email. But I will also consider whether to remove your footage from the video if it is easy to do. In that email, you should include a link to your original video (persumably it is on UK Defence Journal), and if possibly the rough time stamp in my video in which the usage occurred.
@@NavalEnthusiast If it's a problem to remove it all together, a credit in the description will do in this instance. For it to be fair use, it would have to be a much smaller portion of the video, I also note imagery from ourselves is also used.
@@georgeallison3264 Hi George, thanks a lot for allowing me to use the footage in this instance, conditional on me including a credit to you (UK Defense Journal) in the description. Let me know if this interpretation by me is incorrect. I am at work right now, but will credit you once I get the chance this evening. I will also refrain from using material by UK Defense Journal in future videos, unless with permission from you. Also, I appreciate you reaching out in the first instance, allowing me to have a chance at addressing your concerns. I'll notify you again once I have done the crediting.
P r o m o S M
Can Britain afford to build this? The country is on the verge of a recession.
Britain can afford to build anything. The government just likes to control its citizens
By the time the construction project is finished, the UK will be in and out of a couple of recessions. It takes a while to build these.
All 8 have been ordered I believe
@@regarded9702 They are increasing the order. It will take until the end of the next decade to supply the first 8.
Can I just say that from 2008 to 2019 the economy was going strong and there is nothing to suggest we won’t go back to that pre Covid economic growth. Especially now we have fully finalised our brexit deals with NI finally getting there deal. Don’t forget that regardless of a potential recession we are the highest military spenders in Europe
Save your breath.