Subscribe
Notify of
guest

103 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugo

Have to check but I thought the French got a BM with Aster 30 a little while back.

AlexS

It says in the text.

Hugo

I think the article was edited a couple times since, anyway.

Last edited 26 days ago by Hugo
AlexS

Ok, thanks.

Smith-Weston

excellent news – but please don’t expect anything from our current crop of politicians (all parties). The recent tory announcement of an uplift is nothing of the sort.. I recommend you read https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/75billion-more-for-defence-whos-going-to-do-the-defending/

Duker

Yes. The budget was only 1 month back so nothing there – which means real money in the current FY.
But now look at how great it all is out till 2030 ! Its still all Trussonomics

Duker

One analyst used a proper baseline.
If you instead assume a baseline of spending frozen as a % GDP, it’s an extra £20 billion over 6 years.”
Its just so dishonest

Jon

If you knew how the world really worked it would be no surprise all I will say is at the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist regardless of country politics is Hollywood for ugly people in other words they are all puppets and actors they only have an illusion of power albeit well payed political operatives run politics there are also media operatives military operatives three letter agency operatives financial operatives economic operatives and many more who have run this planet for thousands of year for the powers that be though times are changing what once was no longer is I suggest you go to unitednetwork.earth to find out more

Jon

Hey there, other Jon. Just making clear this isn’t me doing conspiracy theories and advertising odd looking sites! If you post right next to another contributor with the same name, it might be nice next time if you distinguished yourself. Thanks.

Last edited 25 days ago by Jon
Sean

The risk of you being called a “conspiracy theorist” arises chiefly from you promoting a fake news site that disputes that there was a pandemic in 2020, amongst other falsehoods…

Jon

The government have control over only one year, this year, and they announced that no new money is going into UK Defence. Don’t be decieved by jam tomorrow. Everything else is shiny distractions as the PM doesn’t expect to win the next general election.

Last edited 25 days ago by Jon
Supportive Bloke

Unless they do exactly what Gordon Brown did when he ordered the QEC carriers – do it right before he left office much to everyone’s surprise.

I do see that happening because it is :-

  • good electioneering; and
  • good industrial strategy to keep the yards building with certainty; and
  • actually the right thing to do for the country.

So yes, the jam may be promised for tomorrow BUT the bill for the bread to spread it on won’t come until tomorrow anyway even if it is ordered today.

Which is why the T26 Norwegian order will have plenty of political attention to it. And I think it is very likely that we will see a T31B2 order using some of the jam.

Bear in mind all the studies have been done on what is needed both land, sea and air so contracts will be rapidly let to use the funds. There is urgency now and this cannot wait for another 2 years of dithering across an election.

Jon

Yes. I hadn’t considered they may do that. I hope you are right but it feels too planned for the current government.

Last edited 25 days ago by Jon
Duker

 do it right before he left office much to everyone’s surprise.”
An old falsehood repeated by the usual suspects.
Historically only one type was ordere a few months before an unwinnable election, and a shambolic contract that was for the Astutes – it was something like 2 months

Queen Elizabeth carrier , I quote wikipedia to save my time
The contract for the vessels was announced in July 2007, ending several years of delay over cost issues and British naval shipbuilding restructuring. The contracts were signed one year later on 3 July 2008
The election was may 2010

Pray tell us Bloke how you reconcile the facts to your claims

Supportive Bloke

Left office as Chancellor and failed upwards to No 10 ???

Duker

Carrier contract announced July 2007, signed July 2008 . Election May 2010

“ordered the QEC carriers – do it right before he left office much to everyone’s surprise.”

What surprise ? When is 3 yrs ‘right before’

Last edited 24 days ago by Duker
Supportive Bloke

He passed it as chancellor so it was on his desk when he became PM to finally approve.

He knew it was the only way it would get through and it had to be done.

Duker

So your claims are incorrect but avoid that by making new ones.
The carrier project ran for many years before the decision was made to seek and then 1 year later sign a contract. Brown wasnt the defence minister and it could be said it was a pet project of Blairs. Again your new claim doesnt align with any reality

Supportive Bloke

It isn’t a new claim.

It is quite well known.

Obvs you don’t understand UK politics as Brown was Chancellor before he became PM.

As Chancellor he agreed the QEC program as PM he signed it off.

But never mind…..your post say it all….

One of us caught flying phones and one of us didn’t……

Chris Dyke

Reports says first time RN ship!!

DeRuyter

From the info we have now its very good news to see that the western missile defence systems are more than capable to repel Russian, Iranian and homebrew threats. In Ukraine, Israel and the Red Sea systems ranging from the Patriot, SM, Iron Dome, Arrow and Viper/Aster seem to be up to the task.

Biggest problem, we don’t have enough launchers and missiles.

Sean

Interesting! Either the RN installed the software update to upgrade the Aster 30s from Block 0 to Block 1, or Block 0 is more capable than previously advertised.

The situation in the Red Sea has certainly shown off the capabilities of the Type 45.

AlexS

Aster always had ABM capability for short range BM’s Any modern SAM with enough range/altitude will have that as long the radar is capable.

Sean

Always someone to make sweeping generalisations rather than refer to the published specifications. The difference between Block 0 and Block 1 is the software for the seeker in the Aster 30.

Supportive Bloke

I don’t think we will know that until the records end up at Kew.

Although it will be interesting to see how the digital records end up being made available.

The irony is that there is far more information recorded but less retained?

Duker

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/digital-records-transfer/what-are-born-digital-records/

The records are born digital and are transferred the same way to Kew who catalogue keep them along with their metadata

Last edited 24 days ago by Duker
Supportive Bloke

Right……and that includes disappearing WhatsApp messages too?……even in 2007-12 a significant amount of government was done by SMS…….

In the past record keeping was a religion in the Civil Service……now avoiding leaving a digital trace in the new belief mechanism!

Supportive Bloke

Given the number of times USN failed to hit various BM targets over the years that is a brave statement!

DaveyB

Both Alsace and Diamond are using the Block 0 Asters.

Duker

Software upgrades ?
Read between the lines about 6 weeks back
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-diamond-prepares-to-return-to-the-red-sea/

AlexS

Notice one thing:

The French are capable fo doing this with a frigate, they recognized the mistake and made their last 2 FREMM Aster 30 capable, RN needs a destroyer for this.

It do not seem RN recognized yet their mistake.

Hugo

Why is it a mistake? For one we have a few more air defence destroyer available, and another is that we are not continuing with Aster beyond the T45 as far as we can tell. Mk41 and a new missiles will be used from now on, and as of yet that missile isn’t in use.
Also those last 2 frigates were to compensate for the massive reduction in the Horizon program, not nessecarily a permanent trend in their frigate designs.
There are 2 other Fremms with Aster 30 but their radar is not capable of using them to its full extent.

Last edited 25 days ago by Hugo
AlexS

It is an obvious mistake RN have only 6 ships with Aster 30. The French recognized their mistake so last FREMM have them.

RN could have them in frigates like Italians (2 Horizon, 8 FREEM and at least 4 PPA) and USA.with their Constellations when they arrive.

Hugo

The French Recognised they were only going to have 2 air defense ships, now they have 4, they could have more but they haven’t.
And no, we can’t have them in frigates because we’re using Mk41 which Aster is not integrated with.
Also the Trade off for those more expensive missile systems is an extremely low missile capacity, with all those Italian vessels barring the Horizons only having 16 missiles, and the French Frigate conversion having 32

Last edited 25 days ago by Hugo
AlexS

They recognized the mistake, the new French frigates FDI will have a Thales AESA fixed planar radar so covering simultaneously 360º and Aster 30 too.
So they will have 2 Horizon, 2 FREMM-DA, 5 FDI, and eventually can upgrade without difficulty other 2 FREMM to DA level.

Last edited 25 days ago by AlexS
Hugo

Again with the tradeoffs in cost of less missiles though.
Also, where does it suggest they’re going to upgrade those other Fremms

Last edited 25 days ago by Hugo
AlexS

I agree that is a trade off, but i prefer that trade off. 6 capable ABM and aera capable ships are too thin.
Not only against BM’s but against the “archer” that can be lobbing missiles/decoys/cheap drone much near your ships without risk.

Hugo

Overall, yes, would totally be better to have it on all platforms, but ignoring even the cost issue it’s currently infeasible for our new Frigates to deploy them. Perhaps in future they’ll at least be able to act as a missile silo for more capable radars. Or the T26 will eventually get a better radar when Artisan is replaced.

Duker

Amiral Ronarc’h has only 2x 8 cell Sylver A50, CIWS is only 2 x 20mm. propulsion is only diesel-diesel [four RR/ MTU 16V 8000 with 2 on each shaft]

AlexS

CIWS is the 76mm

Duker

And the nexter Narwhal is what ?

Nexter-Narwhal-20-021
AlexS

20mm rounds? does it even use APDS rounds that are essential for that calibre?

D J

It’s the French equivalent to the RN 30mm. Pirates won’t know the difference. Neither are a CIWS.

AlexS

Precisely.

Duker

Ok then what makes a gun a CIWS ? It seems to have tracking- targeting system attached ?
Alex, you are the french naval systems supporter, you tell us. But my untrained eye thinks APDS is for tanks but what do I know

AlexS

It seems not much…

20mm rounds have too small explosive and fragment size for anti missile mission, its fragments do not have enough energy to destroy reliably an SSM.
That is why Phalanx and Goalkeeper use APDS rounds. Also the APDS mitigates partially the range issue of these small calibres since it is a round with a higher speed and better aerodynamics than a conventional one. Otherwise the Phalanx would have 1km range at most against fast moving targets.

AlexS

Goalkeeper 30mm

Last edited 22 days ago by AlexS
D J

Agree. The 35mm is regarded as a CIWS, but does not have an attached radar. It has a high rate of fire, but the shrapnel is in a cone rather than spherical shape. Below 40mm, spherical shrapnel clouds don’t work too well unless the target is small (& preferably slow). The EOS Slinger system has its own radar (like Phalanx) but is anti drone rather than CIWS because the 30mm proximity fused shell has not enough shrapnel for a bigger target. APDS is hit to kill but if you are hit you will definitely notice.

Armchair Admiral

I can’t remember reading that Aster was not going to be carried forward to T83. I am sure it would be Mk41 capable, the whole point of the mk41 is flexibility.
If you are short on proper Air Defence ships then equipping some frigates is I suppose an option but only 16 missiles is a very low number and given the missile expenditure recently, a bit dicey.
When quad packing finally becomes a thing for camm, perhaps having 12 Aster and 16 camm or camm/er would give more balance in the 16 Aster capable Silos?
AA

Hugo

While it hasn’t been officially stated, it just seems unlikely with the shift away from Slyver and a greater focus on Australian and US cooperation. Plus neither company is going to want their launch system not being used, or one of their missile systems being used in respect to Slyver and the SM series.

Jon

What has been stated is that we will be upgradng to the next version, the Aster 30 INT. It would be equally odd to go down that route before ditching the Asters for SM2s or whatever. Perhaps we may pay to integrate Aster 30 Block 2 in Mk41.

Supportive Bloke

Thing is we have the missile tech and experience to make our own. I very much doubt we will go American. UK naval tech is exporting very well ATM good performance / price point.

The AAW role of A30 will probably be taken by CAMM-MR and we may see CAMM-LR at some point!

In the mean time T45 will continue to run A30 (upgraded flavours) in parallel with CAMM (various flavours my bet) as well as NSM and a few of the Super Duper Anglo French surface/AShM missiles. It is a very rounded load out that makes a Destroyer in all senses.

French may well do A30 integration into Mk41 otherwise exports will be limited.

D J

Doubt French will do the integration. It will be UK or no-one. Once it’s done, it’s done. Integrating the mk41 itself with a CMS is a different (but easier) matter.

Callum

I think you missed the fact that the French don’t use the term destroyer and call all of their escorts frigates.

The French have 6 escorts armed with Aster 30, the same as us. The difference? A Daring can carry up to 48 missiles; France has two Horizons that can do the same, but the two FREDAs only carry 32, and the pair of FREMMs with Sylver A50 can only carry 16!

As for future frigate armament, the RN blows the MN out of the water; the FDI is shipping out with just 16 VLS, versus the 24+48 and 32 VLS of the T26 and T31 respectively.

AlexS

T31 only have 12 VLS, while RN new ships radars(T26, T31) are inferior to almost everyone else: French , Italians, US, Japanese etc.

Duker

Wrong . 32
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system.

Your radar claims are unfounded too and based on 80s thinking

Last edited 25 days ago by Duker
Rob N

Now you are talking about things you clearly do not know about. The T32 will have 32 Mk41 VLS. As for the radars issue the type 26’s radar is developed from technology used on the SAMPSON radar as used on the T45. It is a AESA and by all accounts is more than capable at doing the job. The Type 31 radar is possibly even better than the T26 radar. The SAMPSON radar is still better than anything the French have and is going to be upgraded soon to make it even better. Do not forget the UK pilled out of the Horizon programme because it wanted a more capable area defence ship… it got one.

Chris

There is zero metric where the 997 Artisan (T26) or NS110 are superior to the SeaFire 500. The RN has opted for budget choices on both boats.

Duker

reading the Thales French brochures are you…. its always magnifique.
The AESA emitter/receiver modules are much the same for flat and rotating

Darryl

And what have you been reading then? communist news?

SailorBoy

I’d hold on to that thought, Gunbuster will probably be along at some point to explain.
I think he’s actually looked inside Artisan and refuses to explain it’s actual capability to me.

Armchair Admiral

Gunbuster is unlikely to spill the beans over any radar or whatever capabilities. What he has said is that Artisan continues to have updates to its software and has more capability than it did when first fitted, a statement not giving much away other than what one would sensibly deduce anyway.
These new fangled radars are software driven. More powerful and faster processors make a massive difference to a radars performance above just simply looking at the mechanical bits and saying they are 10 years old and therefore junk.
Sampson is a fabulous bit of kit, and will still be fabulous in 10 or 15 years time.
AA

Gunbuster

And I am still not explaining it.
The round and round bit at the top of the mast is the visible bit that everyone gets hung up on but that is only part of it. The bits below decks and the software for track extraction and detection are the best bits and they are Very very good and constantly updated from real life lessons and tracking.

AlexS

Ridiculous, if the there will be 32 MK41 VLS in T31 they would have been bought already.

Jon

I fear we will have to wait for Mk41 VLS on the Type 31s. Babcock has a no-spec tampering contract, which also suits the government, as there can be no cost increases or excuses for delay. It means that the ships will have to go through a capability insertion phase to add the Mk41 VLS after delivery. Of course the contract could be renegotiated if it suited both parties, but I can’t see MOD in favour of that.

Supportive Bloke

There was a negotiation over the inflationary costs that appears to have been settled.

So it could have run something like this ‘if you want to reopen the contract for more cash you will need to fit Mk41 to at least the last three not in advanced state and do all the prep work in #1 &2…..’

A commercially reasonable trade off. Otherwise MOD have no reason to payout on a fixed price contract. And Babcock will fold their arms and say we will execute the contract.

Duker

Contracts have variations for changes as they go . Always have so i dont see your point

Supportive Bloke

It was a fixed price / fixed scope contract to prevent variations.

To keep the good ideas club at bay.

Both sides were clear on that.

AlexS

Yes, it is an “intention” by 1SL. But it is not a decision yet.

If you put 32 more cells that change the weight equation for the ship, also looking at height the cells will be. So that needs calculations be made, approved, and budgeted.

Duker

It was designed for large missile silos , but they werent built , so no need for ‘calculations’
” in the space originally left for 16 strike-length VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells.”
https://www.navylookout.com/upgrading-the-royal-navys-type-45-destroyers/

Last edited 24 days ago by Duker
Gunbuster

Doing additions into a contract and messing with work specs during a build adds time and usually its 3 times the cost on a civilian project. Its considerably more on a military vessel.
The MOD finally learnt that doing the upgrades post build is cheaper and easier so that’s what it does.
With good planning and equipment procurement you can do capability upgrades in Fleet time without taking a ship into a lengthy refit or dry dock period
The RN did exactly that with 996 to 997 and SCOT 5 fits amongst others.

Supportive Bloke

Exactly

Leroy
  • Do not use language that is offensive – any such comments are automatically held for moderation.
Joe16

To be fair, the only reason the last two FREMM can do that is because the (4) Horizons the MN had on order got too expensive, so they cut the order by two and put the Aster on FREMM. They have two more capable GP frigates at the cost of cutting their higher-end AAD destroyer fleet in half. I’m not sure that’s a completely good news scenario.

DaveyB

Not quite. France didn’t want to pay for the last two Horizons. So instead they looked at making a cheaper anti-air warfare platform based on the FREMM frigate design. The Alsace is a cut down AAW ship, as it does not have a dedicated 3D volume search radar, as per the Horizon. It uses the Thales Herakles PESA radar, but unlike both T26 and T31, the radar is placed quite low on top of the ship’s bridge. So in some respects it will be no better for AAW than a T26 or T31.

Rob N

Possibly worse given the PESA radar as opposed to mast mounted AESA on the UK ships.

AlexS

For area AAW and ABM it will be better. It can send the missile against the “archer” at 100km and the T26/31 can’t.

Duker

Pleeeese. Aster 15 is similar range to Ceptor and ESSM
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/french-frigate-languedoc-used-aster-15-missiles-against-drones/
Freems are the Aster 15 , the 2 Fredas are the Aster 30

AlexS

Can´t you even read the subject we are talking about? The FREMM Alsace which has Aster 30.

Gunbuster

And when rotating it looks just wrong!

DaSaint

BZ to HMS Diamond’s crew!

Whale Island Zoo Keeper

There is no globally accepted definition for the terms destroyer or frigate.

In America size is used to decide what is what.

Here in the UK it is decided by the hull’s ‘first rate capability’; for want of a better term.

No so long ago destroyers escorted the ‘battle fleet’ and frigates, corvettes, and sloops escorted merchantmen.

That is how the USN could have 8000 ton Spurance class ASW destroyers. And we could have 2500 ton anti-aircraft frigate such as the Type 41 frigates.

comment image

comment image

Just to add to the confusion at one time only frigates and sloops were given Type numbers. Whereas destroyers and cruisers were given class names. That’s why the current Daring’s are T45’s and the previous Daring’s were just Daring’s.

And to add the fun the RN had until Daring (T45) had only built general purpose escorts from Leander onwards.

The Leander class have the same hull and substantially the same steam turbine machinery as the Whitby class, but are a revised and advanced design and will fulfil a composite anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and air direction role. The 40mm guns will eventually be replaced by Seacat ship-to-air launchers. The ships are equipped with VDS, – Janes

The policy adopted by the Royal Navy during the 1950s of acquiring separate types of frigates designed for specialised roles (i.e. anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and aircraft direction) had proved unsatisfactory. Although the designs themselves had proved successful, the lack of standardisation between the different classes led to increased costs during construction and also in maintenance once the ships became operational. Furthermore, it was not always possible to have the ships with the required capabilities available for a specific task. The first move towards creating a truly general-purpose frigate came with the Type 81 Tribal class which was initially ordered in 1956. The 24-knot speed of the Tribals was considered the maximum possible for tracking submarines with the new medium-range sonars,entering service. – Wikipedia

Saying that even the specialist ships had capabilities in all spheres. So T41 mentioned above carried Type 174 search sonar, Type 164, and Hedgehog ASW mortars. There aren’t many aeroplanes in the sea as one of the slower witted and dimmer regulars here likes to tells me. But the RN at least knew there were submarines down there. So the RN’s current strange obsession with categorizing the likes of T23 with TAS ‘general purpose’ is redundant. Especially as the next ship to be categorized as such won’t be able to combat the sub-surface threat so is hardly general. T45 is only a specialist air-defence ship because the RN wasn’t given the money to equip them to a decent standard. See Horizons. See Hobarts. See every other large AAW ship. If they had built from the get go to be specialist air warfare ships destined to sail at the centre of the task group I doubt they would have been given a hangar. But they would still have had ASW capability.

There is little point to all the arguing I see here over ship types.

Jon

Agree with this. “General Purpose” is one of my least favourite designations. It means patrol frigate these days. It’s a bit aspirational and the only reason to call it GP is the hope that someone will beef it up a bit (which, to be fair, paid off). There was a point where it looked like the number of missile silos would distinguish class for the USN, which brought us right the way back to the Royal Navy classifying its ships on the number of guns.

Is the Pohjanmaa really a corvette? It’s about the same as an Anzac in most respects other than range, perhaps slightly bigger. The words change. We try to fall in line with current practice, while keeping in mind what the ship can or can’t actually do.

Last edited 25 days ago by Jon
Defence thoughts

Once we reach 30,000 tons for destroyers, if they are multi-role, you might as well call them battleships (required to escort carriers/ possesses multi-domain fighting capability/ large and with good endurance*). Would be fun to see if anyone got worked up over that.

*Armament is less of a determiner of class than people might think. The US and Russians experimented with plans for “torpedo battleships” at various times.

AlexS

There is little point to all the arguing I see here over ship types.

You may have missed my point .
French(Horizon, some FREMM, FDI), Italians(Horizon,all of FREMM, some PPA) Americans (Constellations) put Area AAW into smaller/cheaper ships, hence more ships in their fleets with Aster 30 or equivalent.

For example for its size i could argue that RN do not put Area AAW in all its destroyers since T-26 can be considered a destroyer. But i did not made that point because i don’t think it is relevant.

Duker

Only Alsace/Lorraine of the Aquitaine class -known as FREDA derivative- and Forbin/Chevalier Paul of the Horizons are the Area AAW ships of the French navy.

The French use Aster 15 to be like Ceptor or ESSM missiles for local area AAW

AlexS

Only Alsace/Lorraine of the Aquitaine class -known as FREDA derivative- and Forbin/Chevalier Paul of the Horizons are the Area AAW ships of the French navy.

For the present that is correct.
But next 5 FDI will have Aster 30. It is also possible 2 last of FREMM-ASW that have SylverA50 launcher will be able to use Aster 30 with small modification.

We are talking about T31 and T26 also ships not in service.

Duker

No evidence of that . Its limited area defence role means the Aster 15 .

However Greece may buy/freebies with Aster 30 for its FDI as its public information that there are a higher configuration than the french navy version incl the German -US RAM system
They are actually the 2nd and 3rd units originally planned for France
“We remind that the Standard 2 configuration will differ from the Standard 1 of the French ships, with the installation of additional weapons such as 16 MBDA ASTER 30 SAM, 21-cell RAM CIWS, decoy launching systems (DLS) by Lacroix, and enhancements in the electronic warfare equipment. Nevertheless, the ship will be “fitted for but not with” the systems..” naval news
So different SAM configuration to MN ships , who knew ?

Duker

So next FDI will be Aster 30 , but not for France. I think you knew that but tried to cover that up ?

AlexS

Elle emporte dans la version initiale pour la Marine nationale le système de gestion de combat SETIS, un canon Otobreda 76 mm, deux canons téléopérés de 20 mm, un système de lancement vertical de 16 cellules Sylver A50 emportant des missiles surface-air Aster 30, huit missiles antinavires Exocet MM40, deux double-tubes lance-torpilles pour MU90.

AlexS

And if you are no happy about Wiki, the French Defence gov website

Fortement armées (missiles antisurface Exocet MM40 B3C, missiles antiaériens Aster 15/30, torpilles anti-sous-marines MU 90, canons télé-opérés), les FDI peuvent embarquer simultanément un hélicoptère et un drone, et recevoir un détachement de forces spéciales avec leurs deux embarcations commandos.

Roger

Duker is foreign, cannot read French, and has problems with English hence Google Translate.

Duker

Ronarc’h the only FDI nearing completion is 8 cell A15.

Yes they could be upgraded, as is ‘maybe’ happening for the next 2 for Greece, but brochures dont always describe what is delivered

AlexS

I have no idea if that is true or not, regardless so are you saying that the other 8 cells are A30 and can launch Aster 30 which you have been denying?

Duker

French use a single Sylver launcher size for their warships as the A15 and A30 missiles are not too different in length. Standard 1 for MN FDI ships wont have the bigger missile

AlexS

I presented evidence from defence articles and French official Armed Forces website that FDI will have Aster 30, You came with nothing.

Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I never really read your point. As a Brit to me in modern parlance an ASW focussed ship is a frigate. A AA focussed ship is a destroyer.

Just because they have a primary focus it doesn’t mean they are denied systems to tackle opponents in other spheres. A foreign submarine doesn’t care T45 has no adequate ASW capability all it is a target.

No you can’t argue that T26 is a destroyer because using British English it is a frigate.
All you have done is regurgitate the same stupid argument.

Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Only a bit. It is all in fun. 🙂

Apparently Type 82 gained a Type number due to the hull’s design being based in part on the Leander’s. You can see it here………

comment image

Supportive Bloke

“Apparently Type 82 gained a Type number due to the hull’s design being based in part on the Leander”

T82 was supposed to be a class of four AAW dedicated destroyers with the space and top weight to take a 3D radar.

Because nobody really knew what Sea Dart would look like when Bristol was designed it was designed big with plenty of design fudge space. The idea was that RN did not repeat the County Class error if building tight around a system.

It didn’t work like that as T82 was curtailed in favour of the, too small T42, as RN was obsessed with maximum numbers of hulls rather than outputs. And a hull was designed…..tight around a system…..plus ca change?

Bristol, because of the extra space, was a brilliant trials ship for loads of systems.

Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Spurances are lovely aren’t they?

Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Still think we should join in with Italian DDX programme for T83.

Speculative imaginings………

comment image

AlexS

Yes, the RN will have T83 ship much faster, but is UK really interested in it?
I mean the industrial Britain. Most of it will be Italian designed. The Italian ship will certainly have MT30 but the UK do not use Leonardo radars in their ships for example.

Duker

Our good friend NAB will say it does nothing for British warship designers and hes right.

In the pre computer days they used to ‘scale up’ the hull form plans from a previous type – in this case T45- and go from there