Firepower upgrade to Type 26 Hunter class frigate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 ноя 2023
- In response to demands for greater firepower for the Australian surface fleet, BAE Systems has shown how the Hunter class frigate could be modified with the mission bay removed and replaced with an additional 64 Mk41 VLS cells (giving a total of 96 strike-length missile cells). The 8 x Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers could be replaced by 16 x Naval Strike Missile canisters.
See in-depth article here: www.navylookout.com/adding-fi...
Footage: BAE Systems.
Music: Drive by Punch Deck | / punch-deck
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0)
Absolutely armed to the teeth, what a fantastic ship!
and now even more heavy and futureless
@@Anakin_Sandy_High_Groundwhat?
Looking good just build them faster and in higher nunbers
Australia needs to decide what they want these to do before ramping up the build speed.
When they were ordered it was clear that Australia wanted anti-sub capacity to deal with Chinese SSNs, and the choice of Hunter went together with killing the French deal and going SSN themselves.
Now, they’ve got an expensive but relatively quiet missile frigate that has no ears and will be a sitting duck in waters with an SSN.
Australia needs to sort out strategy and mission PDQ - this change stinks of a lack of strategic thought and a bit of “they’ve got more missiles then us - we need more”.
More missiles isn’t a substitute for good sensors. Without a tail, this isn’t a “Hunter” it’s the “Prey” class.
The current government will only reduce and deplete ADF capabilities. Yes we need a larger better armed Navy but only when we have different decision makers.
That's a bad idea lol. Who's going to man them.
It's crazy that Canada is building 15 of them, which will make them the 2nd largest user of AEGIS in the world after the US. (Mind you Japan will probably retain that title, they've got new ships being built now too...)
I think they are intending to build a general purpose variant with a decent mix of ASW & AD capabilities...
Maybe that's an option we should look at?
@@chrisburke624 doubt they'll build 15, they're worse than us when it comes to military cuts. only reason they've not been kicked out of nato is because they have two old friends called the usa and uk
This makes too much sense and I can only hope the defence numpty procurement people and stupid politicians go for this option.
Royal Navy could do with another 4 of these.
The Royal Navy will use the Type 26 primarily as a submarine hunter, and use the Type 31 in the missile truck/anti-air role.
@@gunnar6674 apparently the Norweigan Navy wants type 26 so might put RN quota back a while.
@@robharris8844U Yes, The Telegraph reported that one of the hulls originally meant for the Royal Navy might go to Norway in time for 2029.
@@gunnar6674 I would love for all the hulls built in UK but as it is BAE international in control of it, they might as well get a US subsidiary build some.
Australia needs to build both ASW and the upgrade VLS Type 26, the Hobart class AWDS are pushing 10 plus years old and the RAN needs to start choosing a design for the Hobarts replacement, having the one class of ship divided into two makes perfect sense for the RAN especially when they are operating in the IO.
Our type 23s are 30 years old.
This makes a lot of sense for the Australian market. With the distance the ships are away from friendly ports, the ability to stay in the fight is paramount. My only concern is with the VLS upgrade, BAE have had to delete the towed sonar and the mission bay - both key in what makes the Type 26 design, the Type 26. If they just want pure firepower, a different, less expensive design makes more sense.
Right now, in this configuration, the Hunter is a $1b+ very stealthy, VLS launcher. That's it.
They should really cut back and try to re add the ASW ability. But generally there seems to be a lack of understanding on the Hunters role
They have been watching what the Yanks do and are now copying them and will end up with a Jack of All Trades and Master of none just like the Arleigh Burke. Huge firepower but ASW capability that can't match a T23 let alone a T26 and air defence that cannot match the T45.
I know this will get the Yanks writing in but the RN do things the way they do for very good reasons - Specialist ships give advanced capabilities.
Whats the point of 96 VLS when your ability to 'see' the enemy is less than it could be. The UK T26 will have 72 VLS but will be the world's most advanced sub killer. The US Navy's new Constellation frigate will have 69 VLS / Canisters
A blind hunter is just a fart in the wind.
@@alphalunamare pretty much sums it up 👍
Trailing sonar Russia just cuts it off.
Only for Australia? How about UK?
This is actually a destroyer in the guise of a frigate, because there are 72 VLS, compared to the French and Italian Horizon class destroyers and the British Type 45 using the name destroyer but there are only 48 VLS, even the Chinese type 052D destroyer only has 64VLS... this is a ship A very impressive frigate and the best because it is the frigate with the most VLS in the world.. Even the Australian Hobart class destroyer is completely inferior to this frigate in terms of length and number of VLS
They should just build it with 48 cell VLS that's decent armament for a ASW ship. And they shouldn't lose any capability at all with ASW. For destroyers Australia should build Navanti flight III destroyer that has 128 cell VLS and direct energy wepon system. Turning the hunter class into a destroyer will leave RAN with less ASW capability that these ships was suposed to replace. Unless they build both armament varents for 2 separate roles ASW and AWDs
Nice.
cool. But how much weight does that add? And how much in the ships CG altered UP. ?
Because they are being built at a glacial pace they will have to be upgraded many times before commissioning.
Could this be a template for a Type 83 destroyer?
Maybe? Although the Hunter hull is overloaded so they might go bigger
Will likely go wider to support a larger radar.
According to Australian reports, the hunter class is already significantly overweight. If you stick 96 cells onto a type 26 and call it a type 83 destroyer, you are not going to get the most capable radar fit, and will not have the command and control facilities to act as a flagship like the type 45. A 12,500 to 15,000 ton vessel (with equal or reduced manning requirements to the type 45 through automation) is probably more befitting of the cruiser designation and the lofty ambitions for the class, 128 cells (preferably a bit larger than strike length mk 41, sylver a70 etc in the chinese model)
@@lukeallison3713 I mean yes, a ground up design seems more likely, though i dont think itll be double the tonnage. Mk41 seems to be the system that will be adopted
@@admiralmallard7500 Why not, type 83 is a cruiser designation, the comparisons that are being made are often with the 055 and Ticonderoga, and it sounds like the plan is to build no more than 6 with all the talk about networked capability to smaller vessels and the system of systems approach. To be an adequate anti surface, anti submarine and aaw vessel with the ballistic missile capabilities envisioned, it's going to have to be big. There seems to be the political will to spend on them, the only problem I see a vessel 1.5-1.75x larger than a type 45 is the manning requirement (but I think automation will be sufficient)and the question of how many missiles will be procured to fill all those cells. The point I make about cell length is this, the Chinese vls is now 9m long, strike length mk 41 (also used for sm-6 and sm-3) is 7.8 and sylver a-70 7m. Anti ballistic missiles and the ability to retrofit the next generation of anti ship weapons after FC/ASW will require longer length cells, better to be ahead of the game now than scramble around wasting moneyfilling a capability gap in the future
VLS upgrade will be expensive but it will be the best choice.
It's not nessecary though. Not to this extent. They're sub hunting frigates, this upgrade involves removing the towed array
No - it’s a poor choice. When they chose the type 26/Hunter class anti-submarine capacity was clearly key, countering PLAN SSNs with sonar 2087/CAPTAS-4.
They gutted the sensors they need for 24 extra VLS cells.
Without a tail the Hunter class has become the “Prey” class.
Just as stupid as the RN putting a Type 31 in the Chinese back yard - it will be joining the Moskva before all the missile tubes are empty.
@@admiralmallard7500Agreed, towed array is essential for an asw vessel and 96 cells is twice as much as a hobart, definitely overkill However 32 cells is probably going to mean no missile launched torpedo like asroc, tomahawk not always carried and not as many sm for self defense as would be desired and australia has spent a lot of money on the radat fit for aaw, the type 26 radar fit could support an essm only aaw fit. 8 more cells can definitely be fitted forward, and something like a mk56 dual pack essm launcher amidships would definitely be useful
According to BAE it won't be as long as the government gives the order for that armament varent before they start the build.
@@lukeallison3713They can give it 48 cell VLS and keep the multimission bay and all ASW capability by having 2 x8 cell cut down version of the MK41 VLS at the front of the multimission bay still leaving enough room. Have 64 ESSM in the 2x8 cell and the frontb32 cell they can leave for larger missiles. For added extra weight they can do the same as the 96 cell varent by lowering the front crew room a little. It will make the ship more sleeker anyway.
Theirs no such thing as an overkill ship. Australia navy fleet is rather small so the more heavily armed the better. The RAN will be using these ships for multi purpose not just ASW
Tomahawks should be standard for most ships anyway
Wow. Have any been built yet? No? Thought not.
Yep, will never happen. ALP are slashing costs on ships, not looking to spend.
About time the RAN got some serious fire power. Should be building then now.
This video took 106 seconds of my life to tell me that they can add a module with nearly one hundred VLS cells. That could have taken five seconds.
I hope that the British Royal Navy gets this version!
Not for Type 26. Will have to see what the next gen destroyer is
Why exactly? Just because they do something doesn't mean its better. The T26 is a sub killer with added firepower. This has become a missile frigate.
I doubt it the RN will get some cheap compromise
@@andrewhayes7055 What are we talking about here. The T26 is plenty well armed already
@@andrewhayes7055 Why? We already know the RN specification for the T26. It will have 72 VLS.
lol “hunter design pedigree” - how does one even have pedigree when the parent design hasn’t even been at sea.
Well, technically, it's in a river... ;)
Direct energy weapons if you please 👍
The Hunter Class should all be constructed as the upgunned variants now on offer. Bae Systems says they can be completed as shown by removing the multi mission bay and dropping in a large bank of VLS ( I.e. extra 64 - giving a total of 96 )
The total order is likely to be reduced due to the latest requirement to build a fleet of well armed corvettes, but I think that is problematic as Australia already has trouble manning the ANZAC Class. The current contract of nine Hunter Class should be completed and the current class of OPVs should be upgunned.
If they add the 64 it loses some anti sub gear, most importantly the towed array. If they add 32 being 64 in total they lose nothing, so this in my opinion would be the better path forward. 64 VLS cells would double its firepower, quite the improvement with no know trade offs!
A mission bay is suppose be tailored for a particular mission. So I hope these things can be dropped in and out when the mission requires it.
Too big a section for that. VLS would be a permanent addition
Like thunderbird two 😂
Having another missile silo aft would be great but probably eat into the bay below that’s ment to have specific equipment installed as to requirements of mission, personally ide just make the ship longer and put the extra silo in ..
no, BAE systems said that they could make several variants including a 48,64, and 96 VLS cell frigate so we may have like 4-5 96 cell hunter class frigates and then a second variant of it fully dedicated to anti submarine warfare and only adding as much cells as it can whilst keeping the same or even better ASW equipment. If we do end up getting an upgrade in the ASW technology later which could be implemented into the hunter class ship's design, we may end up seeing 3 different variants being a high firepower 96 cell one, medium ASW capability 64 or 48 cell design and then the new technologically advanced variant from previous designs with only 32 cells. 3 of each design for flexibility which could come useful however i doubt that would happen and instead we will only see 1 type of design come for all the ships being the 96 cell design proposed or possibly 2 designs like i mentioned earlier. We could also use corvettes for anti submarine warfare however that wouldn't do that well tbh so i think the way it is right now is decent. Also the costs would be extreme and timetaking for 3 different classes since Australia's shipbuilding industry is absolutely horrible right now and just overall, whenever Australia does a construction project, it often goes overbudget.
@@spinoraptorspinosaurus6969 over budget mmm like the Uk ….b a e or as known here bad at everything is in it for money no other reason and bunch crooks
This ceases to be a sub hunter at this point.
Australia should talk about 45 billion dollars for this class 26 can get 20 for that price government funding should be police officer
Finally a warship instead of an NGO support vessel.
At least the Aussies had enough braincells to understand that massive hole in the middle of the ship is utterly useless.
It should be either a warship or a cargo ship. Can't be both
Compro 2.000 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil Rio de Janeiro
Compro 400 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil Rio de Janeiro
Compro 10.000 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil Rio de Janeiro
Compro 200 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil Rio de Janeiro
0:45 That module replacement doesn't make sense with the same original side openings but a supposedly lower internal roof to support all the missiles, couldn't you get a better design?
The hatches are smaller
They're replacing the full-width mission bay with two small boat bays (one on each beam) and a strike-length VLS taking up the middle.
@@Akm72 I guess the video designer is the messenger and I just shot from the hip stupidly ... oops :-)
TBF your reaction was my immediate thought as well 😀@@alphalunamare
It's all smoke and mirrors, the ALP have screwed every RAN acquisition to date. The Arafura Class has been all but abandoned with no clue what happens to the six hulls being built. So as usual the ALP point to a new hypothetical but unrealistic carrot on a stick.
Compro 60 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro
with this upgrade.......definetly best frigate on water
The Korean KDX has 128 cells VLS , Aegis , 10,000 ton class and half the price.....
The hunter class based on type 26 hull gave an option for 96 cell destroyer varent. But it's been disregarded for RAN as an option. Instead they looking to Navantia flight III destroyer with 128 cell VLS for the future replacement of the F100 class AWDs. That will be built soon after the 6 hunter.class ASW ships get built.
The Australian hunter.class program was cut from 9 to 6 units but will be made up with 11 smaller frigates probably based on Japan new Frigates..the hunter class will be slightly upgunned from 32 cell VLS to 48 cell VLS 32 cells at the front with 2x8 cut down MK41 cell VLS added at the top of its multimission bay for a total of 48 cell VLS. It will be the most powerful armed ASW ship in the world. That's why they only building 6, due to the added extra cost to build them.
The next phase of destroyers has already been chosen but not announced. According from the insider it be the Navanti flight III destroyer with 128ncell VLS and direct wepon systems. But it's still only a paper model at the moment
Get ready for all the haters 😂
@@user-mr4uo5mw9nthis ship is for Australia
@@user-mr4uo5mw9nThis is an Australian warship though...
@@user-mr4uo5mw9n And of course our Yank Brit hating troll rocks up ....
You have no idea what missiles are in our boomers dude so slope off.
At least we can fight and win wars on our own. The last war you Yanks won on your own was against Dominica in 1916. You couldn't even gain independence without the French and Spanish. And who whupped your arses in 1812?
And lets not mention Vietnam .....
You only fight with allies so you can blame them when it goes Pete Tong and take all the credit when it goes right.
@@c.nasser12 He hasn't got the brain cells mate.
@@c.nasser12 And their main threat is from Chinese Submarines ..so what do they do???
Basically, the Type 26 Hunter class Frigate is nothing more than a Compact Burke DDG.
Adios PLAN
Adios “Hunter”, this has now become the “Prey” class - removing the tail from these makes them a prime target for PLAN SSNs (when they aren’t sinking themselves in their own anti-submarine traps).
Ahh thats nice isnt it. UK funds the development etc gets the bog standard model. In swoops australia getting bargain and much better tackle. Think of the war on Emu they could wage with this baby.
The great emu war will be over rated when this bad boy gets streaks going.
UK doesn't need these. Plus the Australian version has numerous weight issues that t26 doesnt