At the recent IMarEST conference, the RN outlined some of its thinking about how the Type 26 frigate’s Mission Bay could be utilised in service. Here we look at these concepts and progress on the road to delivery.
Modularity comes to life
In an earlier article, we speculated about what capabilities could be supported in the Mission Bay. A few years on, work has begun to look at the initial outfit and consider what opportunities there may be in the future. Work is also underway on engineering and logistic support for the different elements when they are in service. The payloads are predominantly based on the RN’s Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS) concept of packaging capabilities in TEU containers.
As delivery of Type 26 gets closer, the idea makes increasing sense. PODS will be completely platform-agnostic and can also be utilised by the Type 31 frigates, MRSS, MCM motherships and other vessels of opportunity. While placing containers on naval platforms is nothing new, PODS will have standardised power, data, HVAC and cooling water connection interfaces. They are no longer just a storage box but can support sophisticated electronic systems, weapons, sensors and human operator occupants.
The RN’s Develop Directorate has proposed many possible payloads for the PODS. In the context of the Type 26, where the container sits within an enclosed bay, the firing of weapons or the launch of airborne UAVs is potentially possible but weapon arcs and flight profiles would be subject to the dimensions of the hydraulic doors when open.
Despite widespread enthusiasm for containerised capabilities ‘bolted to the deck’, this can have a significant impact on the carefully designed low radar cross-section of a warship. By enclosing the payload in the Mission Bay behind the doors which have a steep ‘tumblehome’ angle, they ensure the minimal RCS of the Type 26 is maintained, only degraded briefly when the doors are opened. The doors also provide weather protection and the ship can be turned to launch payloads from the lee side.
PODS-conceptsAt least initially, the embarkation of off-board systems such as XLUAVs and RWUAS seems to offer the greatest potential to increase the reach and lethality of the platform. For the HADR and counter-narcotics role the ability to carry containerised stores, tools, prison handling facilities or an ‘embassy in a box’ means Type 26 will be able to have much greater impact than a legacy frigate.
As a submarine hunter, the capabilities of Type 26 are already excellent, but the CONOPS to define how UUVs might be deployed to enhance ASW potency are not yet mature and will be classified anyway. Placing a ‘mothership’ or RFA up threat close submarines would be avoided but Type 26 is designed for this role and can prosecute hostile submarines or hostile underwater vehicles interfering with undersea cables. Additional aviation assets will give increased time on task (one of the most effective ways of locating a submarine is by spotting its periscope), RWUAS offer increased opportunity to track down submarines using visual means.
The ability to carry multiple Offshore Raiding Craft or other small ship-shore connectors give the Type 26 the potential to contribute to the Littoral Strike mission. Whether inserting raiding teams or special forces, this can be done at a scale not possible for older frigates or destroyers.
There is also a pressing need for hard and soft kill counter-UAS defensive systems, for which PODS are well suited. This could comprise a ‘swarm in a box’ designed to meet hostile swarm attacks in kind or more sophisticated Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons. The focused beam of RFDEWs can disrupt and destroy the electronics and guidance systems of hostile UAS or USVs at range.
The batch III Type 22 frigates (axed in the 2010 SDR) were all fitted with dedicated SIGINT and ELINT equipment. Theoretically a large containerised receiving array could be carried in the mission bay to elevate the ship’s intelligence-gathering capabilies.
Integrating PODS with the ops room and command team will clearly be a challenge. The RN’s Maritime Modularity Concept document (2022) anticipates this, stating: “The ability to integrate new or mission-specific applications to any combat system architecture should become the default position. This should be as simple as adding a new app to your smart phone. The success of Installed and Mission/ Combat Team Modularity is reliant on the ability to seamlessly integrate people, equipment and digital systems within the overall digital architecture. This includes networking users and systems without impediment.”
Type-26-Mission-Bay-configurations-2024Development and support
The RN has taken lessons from the failure of the US Navy to deliver the modular concepts originally envisioned for the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). It is important that at least some of the PODS are developed at the same rate as the host platform. There is a need for training and SQEP to support PODS in service, although the people requirement needs to be minimised. Commonality and interchangeability of capabilities are also important to prevent ‘fleets within fleets’.
The current readiness of Type 26 modular capabilities is at various levels, ranging from systems already in service to concepts and ideas that exist only on paper. As is always the case, it will be a matter of priorities to decide what is funded first. The RN also has to contend with the dire need to get the first of the Type 26s into the frontline, performing their core ASW role in the North Atlantic to replace the few remaining legacy frigates as soon as possible. This may limit the opportunities to experiment or deploy Type 26 with more exotic modular capabilities until the later vessels are delivered well into the 2030s
Careful consideration is being given to Type 26 through-life support including how the mission bay will be equipped. As the first tangible step, a Type 26 Mounting Base is being constructed at South Yard in Devonport. An old warehouse has been demolished and a new building specifically designed to store PODS with appropriate power and cooling connections is under construction.
Design penalties
The Mission Bay is a covered space that occupies the entire 20m breadth of the ship and covers about 300m2 midships on 1 deck and is connected to the hangar immediately aft. Access to the sea is via two hydraulically powered doors on each side and a Mission Bay Handling System (MBHS) is fitted to the deckhead on twin I-beam rails. The carriage is suspended from the rails via 8 roller truck assemblies. The assembly is split into upper and lower carriage systems; the upper carriage facilitates rotation via a slew ring and chain drives while the lower carriage consists of an extending boom and luffing cylinders. It should be noted that the height of the compartment and dimensions of the carriage assembly do not allow for loads to be lifted over other loads on the deck.
The MBHS is rated to lift passive items up to 15 tonnes, manned vehicles up to 10 tonnes or 5 tonnes of ammunition when alongside. There is an onboard ballast system that is designed to ensure stability as loads change in the mission bay. These weight limits are significant and define the size and potentially the capability of off-board systems deployed by Type 26.
A SOLAS requirement is that a ship of this size has two sea boats that can act as rescue craft in the case of a man overboard. The second boat is to provide redundancy in the case of one being unserviceable. Type 26 has a single boat bay on the port side, which will require the presence of a second boat to be kept in the mission bay for launch using the MBHS. (Such regulations could be ignored as a justifiable risk in wartime.) The second rescue boat could be another PAC24 although an Offshore Raiding Craft could fulfil this duty.
The MBHS, hydraulic doors and reinforced deckhead add about 100 tons of additional top weight to Type 26. To achieve this, there have been some compromises and the rest of the ship is quite densely packed, limiting options for future upgrades. The stability considerations have to factor in the embarkation and disembarkation of containers totalling 150 tonnes. There is just a 455-tonne (approx 6%) In-Service Growth Margin (IGM) for additional weight left to be added during the whole life of the ship. This is relatively low and will have to be managed carefully or require a reduction in mission bay capacity. New technology insertion can be largely achieved through software upgrades, the flexibility of Mk41 VLS to accommodate new weapons and above all, utilising the space in the mission bay.
Type 26 mission bay will allow it to adapt to emerging threats and it is a versatile multi-role platform that can perform many tasks beyond its core ASW capability. As in all warship design, there are compromises including limited growth potential and the challenges of developing and supporting the modular components.
“There is just a 455-tonne (approx 6%) In-Service Growth Margin (IGM) for additional weight left to be added during the whole life of the ship. This is relatively low and will have to be managed carefully or require a reduction in mission bay capacity.”
If that is true it is not good news as it is a tiny margin that could be swallowed in one go. Then you are onto reducing fuel loads or adjusting ballasting. Hmmmmm…
The whole point of building big is to leave weight and space margins to make it easier to upgrade. T45 scores well on this as do QEC. Although T26 doesn’t do FFBNW as it comes fully kitted out which is worth remembering.
That spare tonnage or lack thereof is pretty telling in the design issues the other T26 classes have had.
I agree.
This is typical of the reactive silly comments. Logically 450 tons is another small ship! A 5%. growth margin is significant and probably more than most modern combatants. Come on….
It’s really not, seeing as the article talks about it being a slim margin, it’s certainly not enough for entirely new mast designs and more missile cells which weigh 15 tons per 8 cell, before installing missiles
It also makes me much less confident about an AAW version of T26.
Unfortunately it’s what I’ve been repeating as of Late, ignoring funding issues, any future AAW design is going to need to be much heavier, with large fixed radars and certainly more cells than the T45
The hill shape of AAW is very different to ASW anyway.
AAW needs stability at all costs.
ASW needs to be quiet at all costs.
T26 AAW was never a real runner as you end up with a camel of a ship. Mind you camels have uses…
USN Burke class shows this is not so. There are always trade-offs in naval architecture
For the AB F3 new builds they added more bouyancy below the water line to restore the margins that the previous F1 & 2 had eroded with extra weight
That really isn’t the way this works.
N-a-B has been through this a large number of times.
Anyone who claims that AB’s ASW lights a candle to T23’s capabilities is sorely misguided.
Try reading some of Tom Sharpes articles – he commanded T23s sub hunting and has compared to ABs.
Equally AB isn’t T45 as AB is a basket of compromises whereas RN has created the premier ASW and AAW assets. OK, there is plenty of room for debate about what does other functions as neither do general surface warfare terribly well but that is being semi fixed on T45 with NSM and properly fixed on T26 with Mk41/NSM/5” gun.
NAB was wrong about AB upgrade . I found the actual words of the USN NavSea command who explained exactly how they added buoyancy below the water line.
The extra weight up top plus the below buoyancy meant of course that the whole hull structure was reanalysed – on the 3D CAD of course.
For ASW its all very restricted US eyes only , as it should be, so its mostly nationalism hype . Mine is better than yours etc.
I normally lean on my waterskis to favour the RN but its totally implausible that the USN would have some decades with a less than optimised AB class as their only ASW asset ….Please
The only reason USN has AB as their only ASW asset is they decided that dedicated ASW wasn’t necessary.
Suddenly USN has realised that they need ASW – fast. Why else are they building dedicated ASW again? For fun?
I won’t get into why a 3D CAD analysis isn’t necessarily a full design analysis. The AB3’s are a big compromise based on a very out of date machinery specification.
You simply would design them like that these days.
It is like putting T22 back into production with a modified hull form!
The 3D CAD was a just a shorthand for the the recheck and upgrade of the complete hull and superstructure design
So the USN ‘wants ASW fast’ ?. The FFG project is all about cheaper and more ships They are downgrading the ASW from Freem
tell me what is missing beneath the hull of FFG that was on the Freem frigate design
Note that a large bow sonar is on the AB class
We know about the Town class pre WW2. HMS Edinburgh and HMS Belfast (batch 3) as designed were an improvement on the earlier ships but these later two being longer and 2 ft more beam already had some stability advantage.
HMS Belfast was given an additional 2 ft more than Edinburgh, after her back was broken by a magnetic mine and was easily able to carry her 4 turrets whereas the earlier surviving 4 all had X turret removed when additional AA, radar, etc was added.
Would it be a big deal if the latter T26 had an additional underwater form or more beam. Several classes have had this.
Thats fine. But the extra beam for Belfast was given after launching but during its repairs for the under hull mine explosion
It shows along waterline in photos. It also acted as a structural beam.
Pre war older battleships were bulged at the waterline for torpedo protection
HMS Victorious , when rebuilt in the 1950s, with angled deck etc was bulged differentially – one side more than other- to account for angled deck.
The US Navy did similar for its carrier rebuilds in 1950s
The Italian navy has a shed load more of these camel ships than the RN has escorts full stop..infact they have managed to procure 19 frigates all with decent ASW sensors as well as good long range radar and a Aster 15- 30 load for 9.2 billion even getting anti ballistic missile defences out of the latest batches ( 30 block 1 NT). While the RN has got 8 ASW frigate for 8.2 billion.
I suspect in hindsight if the RN could have the Italians 12 FREMMs and 7 PPA frigates for pretty much the same price as the 8 T26s they would bite your arm off.
3 destroyers and 8 Freem frigates plus 4 OPV or light frigates dont make a ‘shed full
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Italian_Navy_ships
The total order cost for the Italian frigate order of 19 frigates is 9 billion pounds..total order of 8 T26s is 8.5 billion pounds you can square it anyway you like..Italy got a lot more ship for its money.
FREMMs 10 built,( 8 commissioned 2 just commissioning in the next few months). With a further 2 building to be commissioned by 2030.. those 12 FREMMs cost 6 billion pounds vs the 8 T26s 8.5 billion
PPA 4 built, 3 building or ordered, with another 3 planned. For 10 total by 2030. Now you may call these OPVs but that is just not correct p, fully loaded these ships come in at 6000 tons..and the Italian navy is moving them to all full load out ( that is aster 30 NT, 5inch gun, 76mm gun, 8 heavy weight Antiship/land attack missiles, light weights torpedos and medium rotor )
The comparison fleets for 2025-2026 will be:
Italian navy 15 modern frigates all purpose frigates, 2 modern AAW destroyers 2 older AAW destroyers 19 escorts
RN 6 modern AAW destroyers,8 but probably 7 old frigates 13-14 escorts
when you factor in all the agreed builds and potential builds you get the following for around 2030-32
Italian navy
6 very high end 6700 ton ASW frigates, with land attack and long range AAW area defence capabilities.
2 very high end 6700 ASW/AAW frigates, with anti ballistic missile AAW.
4 GP 6700 ton frigates with ASW, land attack and long range area defence.
2 high end 7000 ton air defence destroyers, ABM, ASW capability and land attack capabilities.
2:very high end 13-14,000 ton air defence cruisers. All capabilities.
10 General purpose frigates, 6000 ton, ASW, area air defence, ABM, land attack.
26 frigates and destroyers all with good ASW sensors, 8 high end ASW and 26 with long range area defence capabilities ( aster 30 or better).
RN
6 high end 7300 ton air defence destroyers ( land attack, no ASW)
8 high end 7700 ton ASW frigates ( land attack, short range range area defence only )
10 GP frigates, 6000 ton ( land attack, short range area defence only no ASW)
24 frigates and destroyers, 8 high end ASW, 6 long range area defence.
The Italian navy is and will be materially better off in regard to total numbers, platforms that can undertake ASW duties and platforms with long range area defence capabilities.
Hi Hugo. I was thinking about your comment it would be possible to fit
6 MK41 VLS by removing the mushroom farm, and place 4 MK 41,VLS where the other farm is behind the funnel. This would still leave a smaller bay for lighter loads such as boats and UAV extra. It’s a compromise, but with limited options what isn’t? This gives you 80 cells to play with. This would give you 320 Sea sceptre if you were so inclined, although a good mix of capability.
I believe it’s been suggested an AAW variation of the T26 would actually repurpose the mission bay area with varous silos, Mk41 etc, giving a potentially huge weapons load out.
They are major redesigns.
Fuel load is the main weight increase for RAN Hunter class
They too will have a weight growth margin similar in quantum to the RN City class
The increase in beam was more about CEA radar high up. Increased beam also allows more room for fuel. Weight low down in the way of fuel is better than the alternative of adding ballast to balance high top weight. Putting Samson on top of T26 would also create problems (although less than CEA). There are few free lunches.
That’s sounds like enough to be able to fit 2×4 NSM cannisters on the hangar roof as with the RAN and RCN T26s, even if FFBNW. A complementary AShM to the FC/ASW.
That will all come down to cost per shot analysis.
As with A30, Sea Ceptor is complimentary as it has a lower cost per shot so you can have a deeper inventory for the same ££££ and save your expensive A30s for when you need piff paff and range.
You might see NSM in T26 for that reason or the box launch space might be used for something else.
Hi SB, even as a fallback FFBNW and a bit more NSM stock than the 11 sets to spread them further around the fleet if when needed. Its a force multiplier. The RAN has just added the TLAM onto their Hobart AAW Destroyers and “at pace”, I think i read it was within a single year! No mk41s on the T45s which is a shame, but if required urgently the UK will look at TLAM stock for the T26/T31s or getting the FCASW , both versions, in much sooner and even be able to operate all three types!
It should be noted that Hobart class already has AGEIS & mk41. Adding Tomahawk (already integrated to both) is a known. Adding Tomahawk to Hunter is the same. UK T26 uses BAE & will be the first with mk41 for the RN. T31 uses Thales. But is Tomahawk integrated to either? All of course is doable, but it costs time & money.
The FCASW will probably be SYLVR compatible as that is what the French have. So there could be a few shots on the T45 VLS with NSM also there as the low rent option.
Well, this is the first we’ve seen of the more fighty end of PODS.
The weapons and sensor ideas are interesting- is it really feasible to operate a phased array from inside the mission bay? If it were powerful enough and had the visibility arcs, you might be able to install a limited ABM capability but that would need careful study.
Alternatively you could carry it on deck, perhaps on a XV Patrick Blackett derived LOSV as an ABM modular system.
The most feasible types seem to be the UAS cassette and the torpedo defence mechanism, because they aren’t limited by firing arcs.
“ The most feasible types seem to be the UAS cassette and the torpedo defence mechanism, because they aren’t limited by firing arcs.”
I would suggest they are limited by the door opening speeds?
Phased array can never work from inside the mission bay as there would be far to much near reflection and the upwards look isn’t possible.
The array, particularly if it was a lightweight receive only array, could be extended out of the doors before use.
Then the RCS mitigations won’t work and you have to travel about with an enormous array hanging out of the side of the ship.
ABM detection isn’t something that can be done part time. There are very limited windows for action so you can start pushing buttons to open doors and deploy arrays otherwise the warheads will have split from the RV and there will be a multiplicity of targets to deal with.
It would definitely only be limited ABM so AShBMs like the ones the Houthis have been firing rather than SM3 targets.
The array itself would only have to extend flush with the side of the ship to get a full AESA panel’s FoV.
I wonder how good CAMM would be at sideways launch? You might not even need a trainable launcher if you used the turnover pack after ejecting from the mission bay doors, a bit like with fixed torpedo tubes and steering gyros.
Why would you want to launch CAMM sideways for that kind of a mission? The ones that pop out of the vertical cold launchers would be fine.
The Houthi stuff can be detected by ARTISAN so there isn’t any need for an AESA panel. Whilst ARTISAN is not SAMPSON the launch detection will be done by other assets for the radars are cued as to what to look for and where.
If the AESA panel was on one side of the ship then the other side of it is blind to that threat and it will only see around 120 degrees but the off axis sensitivity will be poorer than on axis.
I was thinking more of intelligence gathering, mainly from intercepting communications but also maybe using passive radar with which it is possible to detect and locate targets by making use to the “enemy’s own transmissions, including from mobile phones. A passive array can be very light and cheap.
I broader point is that many here think only of all out
war. The RN has only fought one all-out war since 1945 (the Falklands), or
perhaps 2 if you include the Korean War. For most of the last nearly 80 years
the RN has been employed in surveillance tasks, intelligence gathering,
surveillance, combatting terrorists, pirates or sanction breakers, deterring or
containing.
An interesting PoV on using a passive receiver.
ELINT always used to be the purview of T22B3 as they had a special fit.
This is now moved to T45 – certainly by the look of a few things sprouting out of them.
I’m not sure it would add much to existing good systems that are 360 degree.
We really need more spots for containers on the upperworks of these ships, as is displayed on most new light warship concepts. Then you can fully exploit the use of PODS as weapons stations or radar.
I think if you put the container right next to the door, you could probably give it a field of view at least greater than the sweep limit for a phased array, and passive sensors don’t need to worry about reflections. Looking up for ABM probably negates sea reflections, but you only get a limited view on either side of the ship.
The UAS cassette I imagined as a land attack weapon, so would be readied for launch and the door held open while in the combat zone. Similarly for the torpedo launcher, I don’t know how much warning a modern heavyweight torpedo gives you but you can always just keep the door open on that side.
The ideal solution as I said above is to include extra spots with a wider FoV. Perhaps replace the 30mm spots with containers? Next to the Phalanx is getting quite crowded with Ancilia and probably also DragonFire.
Maybe if Dragonfire was containerised, you might be able to replace it with other systems if necessary.
Sorry for the brain dump, everyone, but there are a lot of things that occurred to me here.
Maybe future missions bays need a retractable roof so that some POD containers – still shielded by the tumblehorn sides of the bays – can look upwards?
That’s what I was wondering for a potential T32 idea.
Instead of installing a T26 style mission bay amidships, you leave the roof off and install some {big} heave-compensated cranes, as well as the side doors. That allows self-loading of full containers, which T26 can’t do at present, and also allows containerised missiles firing out of the well that would be formed between the other parts of the superstructure.
The Absalon already does this, with Stanflex modules amidships, but not so deep and without davits.
You could have a stadium style rolling roof if you really wanted cover to maintain boats, but otherwise you could fire CAMM, NSM etc. and operate as a frigate.
That doesn’t solve the requirement for raised container positions as sensors, but it does help the largely downwards-looking (MCM and ASW) nature of the T26’s bay at present.
In think the BAE Adaptive Frigate T32 concept has something like you’re suggesting in terms of containerised weaponry, pods, missiles, even more CAMM!!
Couldn’t the sides of PODS be pulled out a couple of feet at the base to create a slant, reducing the effective RCS?
If you do that then you’re departing from the ISO container standard that they are based on. That standard means there’s ubiquitous ways to handle and transport them in existence already.
Don’t apologise, It’s all part of learning, you are incredibly knowledgeable already at such a tender age, I’m sure you will have a bright future.
You can’t really put containers high up because of three things:-
And yet most European shipbuilders include ISO containers on the upperworks of new designs.
If you take Fassmer’s OPV range, for example, even the 60m type has 2-4 TEUs round the funnels. It clearly isn’t a huge issue for topweight.
The common way to use containers is have them slightly sunk into the deck, with a bulwark flush with the side of the ship covering them to reduce RCS. It’s not just plonking the things onto twist fits.
That also goes to a certain extent for exposure to weather, but any naval equipment ought to be protected there anyway.
Damage, surely it’s better?
You have a metal box protecting the equipment and if it is put out of action, you call at the nearest friendly port and put a new one in.
The Kongsberg Vanguard vessels also have modular and containerised weapons and covered cannisters for a smallish vessel. A few+ of those to patrol UK coastal waters, could free up a frigate and replace the B1 Rivers. I like the look of the Canadian Harry Dewolf class AOPV too, might be good for far north and south/Falkland patrols without being too over the top.
“isn’t a huge issue for topweight”
That totally depends what you put in the TEU. The box itself isn’t the issue.
In terms of RCS it depends what angle you are looking from.
Are you trying to evade look down such as AWACS or P8 or just a surface/shore radar? If you have the top of a TEU poking out that is like a block of flats sized return. Sure it can be mitigated but you will never mitigate it to elite levels AND you then spend fortunes on each TEU to mitigate it rather than keeping the costs of the TEUs low.
Standard Steel Containers have a huge weight. Is the navy thinking of a lightweight alternative?
Very sad that ARCIMS USV has disappeared from the “mission bay map options”.
It is already discarded as an option?
I think this was just a list of PODS, so the deployable boats don’t come into it as much.
We really need a lightweight towed array on ARCIMS or the SEA class, so that you can extend ASW inshore.
And multi-static further off shore? Gotta believe an ARCIMS with a Krait array can be out in worse weather conditions than a single engine 3 tonne UAS or even a Merlin…..?
I’m not sure about launch and recovery of boats but I certainly think that a small boat could use a sonar in heavier conditions than when trying to dip from a helicopter of any size.
SEA don’t mention much about unmanned endurance for the boats but there is probably an advantage over helicopters there as well.
As long as a nuclear boat doesn’t dash to get out of sonar range, it could probably shadow a submarine on active for ages before being relieved.
My thoughts exactly, use the 3 tonne UAS as a sonobuoy sprinkler rather than a dipper – multi-static with active buoys and the T26 and ARCIMS towed tails listening…. or even the ARCIMS active pinging as you say. So with LUUV or an XLUUV under 15 tonnes (as per recent article on Canadian sub) lots of options for ASW focused kit in the mission without PODS coming into play.
Knowing what we now know, this mission bay would have been far better on the Type 31.
It would have made our most capable surface ASW asset – just that. The temptation to use (abuse) it for the mission bay could (will) be awkward.
Falklands scenario – a Type 26 going inshore to deploy minesweeping kit when it should be protecting the carriers. Perhaps also putting a very valuable asset at extra risk.
Maybe, this should be done by the new amphib vessels.
Wouldn’t have worked on the T31, for one would’ve involved a radical redesign, as it’s missile silos are logically where you’d have to put the mission bay, and it was supposed to be a minimal modification design
But, it would have been part of the original design.
The problem being, it was part of the T26 before the T31 existed.
If the T32 happens, well ….
Lo the T32 concept
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-showcases-stretched-arrowhead-140-multi-role-naval-platform-concept-with-view-to-type-32-frigate-competition/
Thats a bloody nice looking ship.
Wonder why they had to stretch it?
Apparently the extension is around the front of the hangar and funnels, so nothing to do with mission bay or stern ramp.
You can see there is a much larger gap between the sea boat and mission bay than on the base T31.
I am in favour of a combination of these modifications for T32.
Keep the stern ramp and stern mission bay; that allows a full XLUUV and also towed arrays.
Maybe add the midships mission bay, it depends on cost, but even 12-24 CAMM amidships and the stern ramp is a good, useful frigate for little cost.
This model has a couple of mk41s upfront but any additional CAMM farm would be useful.
I’m a bit uneasy with removing the forwards 40mm.
The 57 is good, but I don’t trust it to the same extend in the CIWS role at least until guided rounds are developed.
As I recall, even with the 2m stretch you get less flight deck space. I think it’s the increased hangar size that takes extra from both ends.
Oh, that might be it
I recall there’s room for vehicle storage between the hangar and mission space.
Moderator
Chinese spying
The US and UK have imposed sanctions on individuals and groups that they say targeted politicians, journalists, naval forums and critics of Beijing in an extensive cyber espionage campaign
The overall program made a lot more sense with 13x Type 26’s. The Type 31’s are going to do a lot of the role that the non-ASW tasked Type 26’s would have done.
I agree on the mission bay, and think there’s other features too. The 5in gun is pretty unnecessary on the ASW task, while potentially more useful on a first-responder doing something in the Gulf for instance.
The Bancock MRP stretched version of the T31 i think has the T26 mission bay built into it so you’d not be to far off here. It’s a nice looking useful ship.
Do you mean the Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform (A140 MNP)?
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-showcases-stretched-arrowhead-140-multi-role-naval-platform-concept-with-view-to-type-32-frigate-competition/
Yes. I got the description slightly wrong.
A big mistake if this is the reason for the subpar hangar. An ASW ship with a limited hangar makes no sense. It is the air element that is the multiplier.
French Fremm and the constellation aren’t double hangered, it’s clearly not an exclusive decision to us
Well you want to follow the best practices, not the bad ones.
Constellation has a big hangar for a SH and an helicopter drone in the requirement.
Constellation:
MQ-8C is just a bit smaller than Wildcat.
A wildcat doesn’t do ASW so don’t see how that’s relevant
But oddly the graphics show multiplier images of Wildcat some of them even 2x….which made me wonder these that was all about!
Just pointing MQ-8C is not a small drone like the RWUAV’s above.
MQ-8C Firescout is a 2.7 tonne helicopter , so a just over 1/2 that of Wildcat, its essentially a Bell Jetranger
In size which it is what matters for hangar it is not.
Its being pulled from service by USN, thats what matters.
Large drone helicopters are …..going going
It’s going from the US because they fitted it out for ISR on the LCS: an overcomplex, overpriced solution on a less than useful ship. By the time the Constellations come online the Fire Scouts will be obsolete.
The RN, on the other hand, will be trialling the 3-ton Proteus drone in just a few months. It should be trialled for ASW roles as soon as possible if it’s not to fall to the same fate as the Fire Scouts, derided as an over-expensive ISR platform.
Maybe. But they explicitly say concept of large helicopter drones is out.
The LCS would have serve for decades with them …if wasnt pulled quickly. Thats not obsolete
If there is a large drone helicopter with good numbers it will be used. But the point is to have large hangar space with large or dual hangar doors for direct access the flight deck by diverse assets to have good operational capability and flexibility.
The USN is idiosyncratic and not always right: let’s remember they said the concept of frigates was out as well. They would be an expensive template for us to copy, and luckily the RN has shown itself less likely to copy its US sister service than other UK branches I could name. At least for the surface fleet.
It’s the speed of change of drone tech that would make Fire Scout obsolete by time the Constellations are IOC, and why they have no need to keep them in service. Its capability will be covered better and cheaper by then. They seem to be thinking of Fire Scout as a bloated quadcopter (from quotes a few months ago), whereas we need to think of Proteus as a small, RPAS helicopter.
Looking at the mission-bay configurations in the article, it shows two Peregrine-sized drones for TAPS, where I think a single Proteus drone with a spare mission insert might prove far more useful.
I wonder if it might even be better for ASW to have two Proteus in the hangar and the Merlin in the mission bay.
Merlin is around 20m long – folded!
Indeed it is cancelled, but there is space to operate alternatives without impeding MH60 or forcing stop work on it.
Maybe just deal with it? Nothings gonna change
“Constellation has a big hangar for a SH and an helicopter drone in the requirement”
The MH60R isnt a big helicopter
Wildcat RN is a max weight 6 tonne helicopter
MH60 is an 8 tonne
NH90 is 11 tonne
Sikorsky Cyclone is 13.2 tonne ( MH60s big brother)
Merlin is 14.5 tonne
So? USN can use an ASW helicopter and a big ASW drone, RN don’t. You design your assets according the devices you have.
MQ-8C ( 1.5 tonnes) are going out of service this year and next. They were intended for LCS Independence Class , not FFG
Thats $1.5 bill gone over a decade
There is no large drone replacement in mind . Maybe BAE light drone is in with a chance
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/us-navys-mq-8c-fire-scouts-fly-into-retirement-just-two-years-after-entering-operational-service/158500.article
Merlin in the hanger, Merlin on the pad is entirely feasible with rotation, as are other options with Wildcat. If only we had enough of both though.
I wonder why incorrect information that RN lacks helicopters keeps going to surface…
RN will have 8 T26, Merlins are 30, more than enough to put 2 in each operating T26 if the hangar allowed.
It is not practical to rotate Merlin vs drones or other helicopter. Imagine having to take the Merlin out to one side of the pad stopping mechanics work in middle of freezing North Atlantic at night to let a drone get out…
Wildcat is not ASW no not relevant to the main mission.
We can’t even deploy a dozen Merlin’s on the carrier on a regular basis, let alone 2 for every frigate
We have less Helos than Italy, and wouldn’t be surprised if we had less than France.
Also consider the fact 2 hangars may have not been considered a must if we can’t afford the helicopters to fill them.
How UK cannot deploy 12 since it has 30?
Because of mediocre availability on fairly old helicopters
Not old. Upgraded to HM.2 by 2016. Helicopters are much easier to keep flying by upgrades/rebuilds
The Army aircorps are having their Apache fleet rebuilt/upgraded to latest standard
“ Five HM2s are in maintenance at any one time, leaving 25 available at readiness, of which 14 will be assigned to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier.” says Seaforces.org
When was the last time we had 14, if ever on the carriers
14 are assigned but not necessarily embarked, if you multiply that number by two (Both Carriers at sea on a mission like FI 1982) that leaves nothing for T26/31, Bays or even B2’s not forgetting the two recently announced retired Albions. RNAS Yeovilton and Culdrose would be ghost towns.
We simply do not have enough Merlins (or anything else come to that) and nothing in the pipeline to replace them.
This latest bunch of clowns are stoking the fire of cuts even more so than those that went before.
How it leaves nothing?
You do have the other 16 to choose from.
“assigned”
This is not a chat forum
Because out of that notional 30 you have to find helicopters for two aircraft carriers, ASW Type 23 Frigates, some Type 45 Destroyers, Crowsnest AEW, the SSBN commitment at Prestwick and a training Squadron, and those in maintenance or repair. Simply not enough.
Hence the Wildcat HMA2 in the picture of which there are 28 in total.
Makes no sense.
To maximize the aircraft air wing in the carriers you want a small number of Merlins in it , 3-4 at most.
That is not a huge number and and many remain operational available even if RN have a lousy operational level out of them: less than 50%.
T45 do not operate Merlins so that is out of equation.
“T45 do not operate Merlins so that is out of the equation” Oh yes they do !
Show me a photo of a T45 with a Merlin at sea. You might find 1 or none…
T45 was designed to carry Merlin, go look it up, even a simple wiki search says so. Hell even a B2 River can carry Merlin.
So that’s potentially 5 B2’s, Two QE’s 6 T45’s, 8 T26’s, 5 T31’s and a whole bunch of other ships of the RN and RFA.
BTW, I’d hate to see how you get on with getting your car out of the garage if you don’t understand even the basics of how wheels and Brakes work and how do you think Helicopters are unable to be moved around from hanger to deck and visa virsa at Sea in anything but calm weather.
When I write Brakes, Wheels and Tethers, It pays to read and understand before typing random targeted rubbish. What do you think Aircraft Handlers do on ships, hide below until calm waters arrive ?
I’m reading your other replies and sat here shaking my head, even Duker is having trouble with you and he’s posting simple pictures.
Just to confirm my original comment was about a T26 being able to accommodate 2 Merlins if it had to, one in the hanger and one on deck….. This is true, obviously doable yet all you have done since is come up with random babble and evasive answers.
Don’t forget the handbrake when you get home.
Nah, what you said is that it is no big deal moving a Merlin on wheels – with only its brakes – to an extremity part of the heli deck to make way for the other one.
Nope I actually didn’t say any of that I think you are incapable of even grasping the basics of reading writing and maths.
Never in all my years on these sites have I met such a delusional contributor.
Please feel free to copy and paste what you said I said lol.
Laughing so much at you here….
jim, Georgie and Alex S
Several experts, here on NL debated the compatibiiity of the T45 and the Merlin flying machine earlier this year
It was debated under an article about the Red Sea War. (Note: I had kicked it off by asking why our AAD destroyer was not operating a Crownest Merlin – so as to detect “incoming” and “launch sites” much quicker)
All in all, that seemed to all of us to be a very strange ommission from the RN’s ORBAT …..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Yes yes yes and it still remains true that the T45 was designed for and envisaged to have Merlin capability. I’m happy to state what I stated earlier.
He’s right though, we don’t have the numbers for 8 T26, 5 T31, 2 Carriers and all the other Merlin capable ships.
Are you the Jim from the other site ?
He’s not right as 8 T26 will not be sailing at any one time!
Yes, that’s because we don’t have enough crews or Merlins for all 8 let alone the rest of the fleet.
Erm, You’re joking I assume ? Maths not your thing ?
30 ASW helicopters and 6-12 can’t be found for your ASW asset? Well it is not me that have a math problem.
You are ignoring completely what I actually wrote, I can’t be bothered explaining it yet again.
Says who ? You are of course peddling the french navy MN view where the RN glass is always empty. Its tiresome, especially trying to say helicopters cant roll on wheels.
So you do want to roll an helicopter on wheels in a non stable platform due sea waves….!?
Where you think it will end up? Maybe you can explain how you stop the 14 ton helicopter when your helo deck have a 5º banking…
They must be able get it into the hangar when deck landed in rough weather Thats the whole point of the deck landing system both “hold and haul”
Of course they can because they are on rails. It is rail device that control and secures the helicopter movement on deck despite waves up to a certain level.
But rail device means the helicopter is limited to where the rail goes. so you cannot move the helicopter in heli deck to any place you wish.
That doesn’t work if the deck handling system is linear from landing spot to hangar, so you can’t get the helicopters past each other.
What’s needed is a track system going around the edge of the flight deck as well, so there’s more flexibility in movement and you can get past more easily.
I wonder how Proteus will move around the deck, as the concept images show skids?
You clearly have never been at sea on any kind of real ship. Having served on many classes of RN Ship I can confirm that Helo’s get moved around in all but the worst sea states.
Pleas refrain from talking bollocks and leave the chat to those that actually know something of the sea.
Your post shows you do not know what is being talked about.
Duker et al says that a Merlin in hangar can just be pushed to the heli deck side for the Merlin in the mission bay to go to the flight spot. Then the Merlin returned to the hangar.
Well that is impossible if the rail system don’t have a way for a Merlin pass side by side with another Merlin.
Rotation, a basic guide for the less well informed/knowledgeable.
The Merlin on the flight deck takes off, the Merlin in the hanger is moved to the flight deck and also takes off, the first merlin lands and is moved into the hanger, the second merlin lands and sits on the flight deck.
We have this basic system with the 5 vehicles in the garage and on the driveway, we use their wheels, engines and brakes, no need for tethers even in the worst of weathers.
Luckily our house doesn’t pitch or roll but you get the picture.
Yes that is the only option, but it means both Merlin need to be capable of flying.
Ive never said that there was a merlin in the ‘mission bay’ , its far to big a chopper.
It said the small torpedo carrying drone can be moved out from the mission bay easily enough once the chopper is moved out and back in again
Might be a silly question but would it be feasible to rotate two Merlins between the hangar and flight deck without at least one taking off?
Yes….. That’s rotation …. You rotate one to enable the other to fly as well. This site seems to have no real experts on these matters.
You do have to move one out of the hangar and into a extreme part of the deck then move the other one out into the deck in a way that do not blocks the hangar entrance for the first one to return to it. Now do it in North Atlantic and night with SS4 or SS5 having to interrupt work in the first Merlin.
T26 flight deck is very spacious, your scenarios are a little lacking in the actual mechanical design of the Merlin and it’s ability to fold itself into a neat little package. Take a look at the pictures shown in the article.
Here is the heli deck of frigate, note the the slots/racks in the deck? 2 slots for the Merlin Hangar, 1 slot for the NH-90 hangar. It is to move the helicopter in controllable way with sea state in/out of hangar.
You don’t want 14 ton of helicopter being controlled by gravity and ship movement in your deck..5º down the bow and here it goes crashing into your hangar. 5º down by the stern and here it goes into the drink.
Assuming you were trying to reply to me rather than yourself, ? You seem to be missing some real basics about aircraft handling and securing in bad weather. A Helo on deck has the same issues as one in the hanger, that’s why they have Brakes on their wheels and tethers to secure them. Can’t wait to read what you write next.
Haha. Explain to me how do you move an helicopter with brakes on.
—————————————————————
Side note, brakes are not enough for heavy seas even inside the hangar.
Oh deary me. you seem to ignore everything I say, including the tethers that are used both inside and outside of the hanger. Seriously my friend, you really are rather simple it seems. On so many levels. Pffft I love these sort of comments, they make my day.
You still did not answer how do you move the helicopter…
Voila, in your language
Seriously ? You telling me you don’t know how they move a Helicopter, you don’t know how brakes work, or how they fold up for storage ?
My goodness me, are you sure you’re on the right site ?
Well your helicopter goes into the sea or crashes into the hangar superstructure since you don’t have a way to stop it when you are moving it…
MacTaggert Scott systems are ‘hold and haul’ back into hangar’
You see the RN and its suppliers are more inventive than the French
So cant work…LOL.. if they get in the hangar like this it can be rolled out for a brief period too
Why not show a RN destroyer or frigate ? They use 2 types of MacTaggart Scott tie down systems. The whole idea was invented by Britain of course
Curtiss-Wright in US have something similar
theres a whole video on YT , this is just a ‘snip’
enough of your nonsense. Ill use this same pic every time you opine on this
You’re wasting your time on this one, he’s a little bit thick it seems.
If you are incapable of seeing the slot in the picture where the RAST runs there is nothing i can do for you. That above seems a Canadian helicopter. For RN Merlin it uses 3 rail system.
So now you need a system, nice thing you discovered. It is just not moving the helicopter as if it was in a port with no waves.
Now explain how do you move the helicopter outside the system path while still secured by the system…
Thrashing !!!!
Doesnt move ‘outside path’, its the same path in or out , has to be as the hangar isnt wide enough to have a choice. Once the helicopter is clear of the doors its small drone thats now moved around it
I believe Alex is referring to moving the helicopter in the hangar out of the hangar such that the 2nd helicopter in the mission bay can now be moved through the hangar onto the flight deck & the first helicopter moved back into the hangar / mission bay in high sea states, especially if the first helicopter is in need of or undergoing maintenance (can’t fly off to create room). ie he is talking about two large helicopters, one behind the other (rather than side by side), not one & a much smaller drone.
Yes, 2 Merlin in the heli deck to make the exchange. It needs 2 systems (rail, slot) that separate in helo deck.
I am talking about 2 Merlin, not a small drone.
A drone still needs a tractor i suppose 500-1000kg is still a disaster if not controlled in a waving helo deck.
No doubt XV Patrick Blackett will be used to test many of these PODS. One that I would like to see, though obviously not suited to the T26, is a Sea Ceptor capability. These could also give a much needed boost to land based defences.
Just out of interest, and I may well have misunderstood something, how would the helicopters in the POD be transferred to the fight deck?
Where are you seeing helicopters in PODS? At most I think helicopter-like drones, such as Peregrine could be housed in these. It MIGHT be possible for them to take off/land out of the bay doors, could be a little hairy though…
The hanger and Mission Bay are connected, but can be separated by a fire/blast retardant door if required. So you can carry a helo in Mission bay and/or in hanger. Then just wheel on through when required.
You can’t move another helicopter or a drone out if a Merlin is in the hangar.
Move the Merlin- on wheels – out the door to the deck for a short time. Same when you have 2 Wildcats in hangar.
You do know that Merlin’s have wheels ?
Apparently they dont do it like that in the MN, hence l’impossible
Which is a lovely idea until you try and do that in a high sea state.
All of a sudden the Merlin has a life governed by Mr Poseidon’s antics.
If you hit a bad wave it is squashed deck crew and Merlin overboard.
Which is why moving in and out of the hangar is usually done in a very controlled manner….
I’d really not want to try and move two Merlin’s past each other on a T26.
In most navies that operate in heavy seas the helicopter is only moved to its flight position stuck into a slot that goes from the hangar to the flight position.
If there are waves the helicopter is uncontrollable if moved by its wheels.
Exactly this.
The movement routes are predefined by the deck tracks for exactly these reasons.
Mactaggart Scott invented RAST for RN
They have two types
https://thinkdefence.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/motion-compensated-helicopter-decks/
In all cases the helicoper rolls on its wheels secured by a rail or cable
The RN system uses cables for T23
Simple task to move from hangar onto deck to have acess to hangar and then roll it all back again
Not so . It can only move by its wheels , the assist system is to hold it down. You french may use a different system…non?
The british invented the whole helicopter recovery onto a small deck system.
If you are incapable of seeing the slot in the picture where the RAST runs there is nothing i can’t do for you. That above seems a Canadian helicopter. For RN Merlin:
He is spying for China
Moderators
That is the big mistake in T26 hangar configuration. You will have to move the Merlin helicopter out of hangar to an extreme position in the helideck or fly it off.
It would only makes sense if the T26 was not an ASW ship and/or if Merlin would be about to be retired from service. As you can see you have no problems with helicopters/drone up to Wildcat size since they can be side by side under cover – assuming there is a permanent free spot.
I believe our CH-148 is even bigger than a Merlin so the RCN will have similar issues.
CH-148
The Merlin on MTO the main metric and others is bigger
I wonder if the giving up on the CAMM silo for the RCN had anything to do with the hangar layout (weight/space) and the CH-148 helo below then?
The CAMM silo juts into the mission bay rather than the hangar, so I doubt that was the issue.
They probably just didn’t want a whole extra missile type on top of ESSM, but it seems silly to replace it with the more expensive but arguably inferior RAM in the point defence role.
Thanks SB. If not the Canadian’s then hopefully the Norwegians will take up the CAMM if the T26s get selected.
BTW, i hope you’ve done well with all your EoY exams?
We all hope he’s done well, It’s a miracle he can go to school, study and comment all day on here and the UKDJ site whilst in class and avoiding the teachers gaze/annoyance ….. Having such mahoosive knowledge of so many defence related subjects at the tender age of 16 is unbelievable truth be known… A real child prodigy.
Reminds me of a young version of Deep32… who sunk without trace @Владимир Темников the same time he appeared.
Him and Deep would have got on like a house on fire.
When are the holidays in Australia? GCSEs were last summer!
Did well, I think. Flunked Eng Lit but good in all of the others.
Norway would be forced into CAMM, I think. They can’t take ships off the production line and still modify the missile silos.
It’s been a ong while since I’ve been to high school both in Aus and the UK. Holidays are on now i think. I’ll get back to you on this. I think the school year here is more within the calendar year.
It’s along time since he went too.
Failing English is almost a requirement if you want to be an engineer. At least 50% of science oriented people struggle with things like English Literature as they can’t see the logic in it or the requirement for long winded essays when one page would do.
Really we need these PODS Mounting Bases built at all RN facilities around the world (eg HMS Jufair, Oman, Singapore, etc) so that frigates don’t have to travel all the way back to the U.K. to reequip for new missions. Won’t be cheap to establish, but like forward basing of ships, will save money and increase operational availability long-term.
Let me introduce you to the Royal Air Force C-17 and A400 fleets
And? If you read the article you’ll see that the PODS aren’t just dumped on a quayside to be loaded.
Are you going to fly them back to the U.K. every time they require maintenance/ repair/ upgrades?
Are you going to fly some of the T26s crew back to the U.K. for training and mission rehearsal with the new POD before then being flown back out with the new POD?
Surely attached crew would accompany the POD wherever it went?
Retraining crew takes too much time, as LCS showed.
the solution would be to have operators trained in the use of the system follow it onboard and limit retraining to rehearsals for fighting the system rather than actually learning how to use it.
Yes . And if a C-17 flies out they can carry cargo back too. Crew rotations are a thing at distant places , even on commercial flights
Forgive me, I’m not quite clear: Is PODS a concept that the RN has bought into but not yet actually produced any of, or are there actual PODS types out there already? If so, which ones?
I think the idea is good, but the other piece surrounding avoiding LCS failure is remembering that if you make them too specialised, you need to train the rest of the crew in particular operational behaviours too. Then you have a specialised ship, not just an augmented capability. I know that ASW is already the specialised capability of a T26, but PODS ASW doesn’t necessarily turn a hypothetical T31/32 into an ASW vessel- because the rest of the crew needs to know how to do the sprint and drift stuff to make best use of the TAS and suchlike. I’m not saying they couldn’t learn, or make do in a pinch- RN crews are very good. But it’s a specialism that doesn’t lend itself to rapid plug and play.
Unlike a bunch of land attack drones, or a set of RWS for killing swarms, which is more a sort of “theatre entry augmentation” for going into a hypothetical hot Straits of Hormuz.
A challenge with the mission bay as-is, is that it doesn’t allow VLS PODS- but there are plenty of systems that can launch roughly horizontally.
I guess other PODS (not necessarily all directly suitable for T26’s mission bay) could include ROVs (probably split across two) for seafloor work on comms cables and suchlike; 3D printers and other equipment to augment/double up on equipment from the ship’s machine shop; desalination systems to support disaster relief and distributed amphibious landing ops (not sure on capacity, but still). Sure there are others.
PODS is a Navy concept (more of an aspiration, really) that says that additional capabilities beyond the ship’s main role should be modular and deployable onto the ship as needed.
There’ve been prototypes of the more basic ones displayed to industry ashore but nothing complex or deployed on a ship.
It isn’t like LCS where the whole crew “adopts” a role, but if you need kit for a deployment that you didn’t need for the last one, you can get it onboard with the specialised crew instead of having to refit the whole ship. “Theatre entry augmentation” is a good way of putting it, I think. That’s why the concept is moving away from ASW and things to ways of keeping the ship protected and functioning across more situations.
It is a concept, but the problem is that T26 class are a small number of ships so i can only see it deviating from their main mission ASW rarely, specially with current international situation. So i think the mission bay will be used as storage mostly.
Modularity is a nice concept but it is seldom practical because only with repeated use makes sense to invest in it, and with repeated use it makes more sense to make it permanent.
The mission bay could still be useful in the North Atlantic/ASW role.
A SEA Class derivative using a towed array seems an obvious development and helps extend the range at which submarines can be accurately tracked as well as acting as a pinger for the passive tail.
Then there is the (I assume it’s MoD, not sure) concept for the SIGINT/radar antenna.
That would be a great help if tracking Russian/Chinese warships.
The final one is XLUUVs, but that’s obvious.
Btw I think you’ve made your point clear about the single hangar, we all know it’s a disadvantage but what’s done is done.
I think the SIGINT antennas are already there, those 2 big each side to hangar top.
One thing i can see it being very useful is to expriment new technological solutions that otherwise would be difficult, being covered make it easier to protect secrecy.
The “Guide to the T26 Frigate” has the raygun looking things down as communications antennae, I believe the EW and SIGINT stuff is grouped around the mainmast (maybe those triangle things near the top?). SIGINT is one of those scalable capabilities, however, so a more specialised module may still have a use to turn a frigate into an impromptu Rivet Joint.
The tech development stuff is very important.
If we can spirally develop and kitbash new technology and get them to sea quickly, it can only be a good thing on operations.
I think his point has been well and truly debunked as has your own ludicrous identity. But keep it up, It’s certainly entertaining on both sites.
Did you manage to read my reply to your previous comment before yours got deleted?
Nothing I say or do short of a photograph can convince you of the truth, so I will now simply ignore you until you engage in good faith again.
Have a nice day.
You like to get my comments deleted, I’ve noticed ! anyway Toby, I would wear trousers today at school as it’s a bit nippy for shorts.
Being able to post so many times during school hours on here and the UKDJ site must be so difficult.
Keep up the act, it’s very good, you have managed to fool so many others.
Packed lunch today ?
Not sure how 30 odd shops is classified as “small”
If you can sell it to the other T26 operators yeah, it stops to be small. But i doubt it.
They all still have “mission bays” as far as I’m aware or do you know something different?
Maybe after todays Nautilus vote and the RMT suggesting more RFA strike action they are designed to carry fuel and food stores????
One would assume that the Type 83 is going to be designed with a similar mission bay so that the two types can share PODS, whenever it finally enters service?
Why would you want to put a fleet anti-air asset into a littoral harms way to deploy a MCM payload?
Is the T83 not going to be big enough without this?
This should have been in the T31, perhaps now the T32.
Who says it has to be an MCM payload? The idea of a mission bay is that it is flexible.
I would expect T83 to have its PODS more exposed on the upperworks given the strike and air defence roles.
Not much point only having access to the water if you want to add a DEW, and the semi casemate options shown here for T26 only get you so far. A CAMM POD, maybe long range drones, they all need access to the sky.
However the general concept of rapidly adding niche capabilities will still be there.
It’s spare volume in the design that has been re-purposed as a ‘feature’. By the time the design has included everything that is needed internally, with all weapons and sensors ‘outside’, and the hangar and flight deck back aft there is volume remaining internally. It is one of the reasons why all these 6,500 tonne plus ships have Chinook capable flight decks, lots of room.
I think Friend Not a Boffin said Chinook capability was a design driver for T26. That may be true but more because a 3 ringer doing his stint in Main Building thought it would be a wheeze to add it to the specs knowing that the flight deck would be Whokka capable anyway.
FWIW in terms of displacement a T26 will be about five and two thirds times the displacement of a Castle. As I said spare volume.
Very simply – focus on the anti-submarine mission. If torpedos are needed add magazine fed systems outside mission bay and focus on assetts in the mission bay which improve effectiveness against sub surface threats. Focus on a system of systems approach that delivers strategic advantage in the one critical domain. The idea that these were global combat ships with universal application was always a misnoma. Future frigates can be Jack of some trades but t26 should be Master of one.
The comment guidelines say , not a chat room, but use evidence and I try where possible to find such for my opinions hence links and text in quotes.
“make your case using facts and evidence.”
Well if you genuinely want facts and evidence rather than conspiracy theories…
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/
Haha, how can you call facts when there is no proof and it is impossible to.
Explain to me the reason the large European drought of 1539-1540?
If it occurred today you and all “scientists” would claim that it was due to CO2…
So much for science… for you it is instead a Magic Word, it is always the truth, forgetting that most science have been wrong.
Its no conspiracy , thats your invention.
Just mostly junk science based on computer models that predict the unpredictable
Who would trust weather models beyond a week or two and the different climate models pretend they know 5, 10, 20 years out.
Yes, way way out in the 2024 Named storms and hurricanes predicted total too .”an 85% chance of an above-normal season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season and a 5% chance of a below-normal season” – NOAA.
But it was below normal ( 21) with 18 only
Its simply the emperor has no clothes syndrome, the more grand it is theirs more who dont wont to be the one saying the obvious
Are you chatting?
The comment guidelines say , not a chat room, use evidence
I do tend to see his point though. most on here engage in general conversation in relation to the article and the comments generated but you seem to look for every opportunity to pick apart and copy and paste stuff just to appear superior. Maybe if you joined in and stopped acting like you owned the place, you’d not get so many others giving you a bit of grief ?
Looks like the penny finally dropped for the Zoo Keeper, maybe it’s your turn now ?
Again more questions than answers. So the Royal Navy is looking at PODs yet the Danes have through SHDefence The Cube. Would it or have we looked at the Cube to standardise power cooling etc or are we going it alone where we don’t get enough of anything.
If our political masters have any grey cells then we could use POD modules and Cube modules thereby saving money in developing some capabilities as they are already developed whilst investing into others that are note developed. By having the capabilities from both systems we could reduce investment, have a European pool of containers and increase flexibility and capability.
I am concerned with the Growth Margin of 455 tonne. Does that include or exclude the containers for the mission bay. The reason is with heavy mission bay containers that could be 250 tonne taking away from in service growth leaving only a 200 tonne margin. With the life span of the ships I can see upgrades to both weapons and sensors both of which are high up in the ship. This will very quickly eat into the growth margin and cause stability issues.
To be fair, 450 tonnes is the equivalent to 30 Merlins, so not actually too shabby really. When Hermes went south, she was very heavy indeed, she had some rather challenging seas but made it there and back and you can bet that her published design parameters were something on the cautious side.
Hopefully the resident Copy and Paste expert will post an in depth article about this.
To be noted the Type 23 gained approx 900 tonnes in displacement through its life so would think only 450 tonnes for the Type 26 very marginalat at best.
Agreed, there is probably more room for growth than appears now. Things change and things adapt accordingly.
Should have explained that the BAE PR stated the designed Type 26 displacement was 6,900t and that left a 1,100t margin to its max possible hull displacement of ~8,000t, not too far off relative to the Type 23 margin figure.
Unfortunately it turns out BAE was unable to estimate weights with any accuracy and the actual displacement has come in at near 7,600t and why the margin had to be reduced to only 450t so as not to exceed the hull max ~8,000t .
If there was a need to increase weight over the 460t limit, for example a new mast with planar radar arrays. Is it feasible to add buoyancy to an extant design?
Presumably this was in error as the Hunter class is;
8,800 t (8,700 long tons) full load displacement.
And BAE have stated that there is still growth margin (missiles up to 96), if required. So the 5% growth margin is “conservative”.
Not the same hull as the RAN says beam is extra 0.6m, plus about 2m longer.
The RAN needed more fuel for longer range for Pacific and that meant extra storage down above keel, a good place for that weight
“Type 23 gained approx 900 tonnes in displacement through its life”
That sounds impossible… what was added in earlier and mid life update to account for all that ?
I wish people would add links for these sort of claims
A weight margin of 10% is a typical figure , 20% is ‘made up’
The power upgrade was ‘upgrade involves replacing the four diesel generator sets with modern equivalents to provide much greater fuel efficiency and performance’
Sea Wolf was replaced by Sea ceptor in the same launchers ( with sleeves for the smaller diameter)
Links, I was also slightly surprised at the figures but the Navy International write up on the Type 23 April 1986 quoted displacement of 3,500 standard tons, which excludes fuel, so full load displacement would have been around 4,000 tons mark and now the Type 23 displacement is quoted at 4,900 tons including Wikipedia, your thoughts.
I think there may be a short / long ton mixup with those numbers.
With T23 some heavy bulky things were removed such as the origional computers and replaced with a few compact racks.
The new DGU’s are more powerful but I think a tiny bit lighter.
Not all upgrades are weight increases.
Thanks for that.
Standard displacement was without ‘fuel and oils and boiler feed water’
And yes 3500 tons was ‘standard’ and full load is 4200 tons
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=793
So a discrepancy of 700 tons
the QEC are 65,000 tonnes standard but full load 80,600 tonnes- both metric
But Imp ton is only 16 kg more than a metric one so its very little change
Thanks for the info, though was surprised Type 23 had that amount of fuel capacity. Why saying that the Iver Huitfeldt class and presuming the Type 31 has similar fuel capacity of near 700t and a cruising range of 9,000+ nm whilst Type 23 range is only 7,500 nm.
T23’s range, with the new DGUs, will be a lot more as well.
Hi Duker, please may I ask where you get the figure of 80,600 tonnes full load displacement for the QEC from? I saw a response to a FOI request at the time of CSG21 in which the MOD assert that full load displacement was 65,300 tonnes.
For the wall of the toilet cubicle since he BS a lot
Moderators
I’ve only ever seen and read about the 65,000 tonnes displacement and a full load of 72,000, not saying this is correct or that Duker is incorrect but the 72,000 figure is the max I’ve seen.
that 7000 Tonnes difference is entirely conceivable given the so far lack of anywhere near approaching a full load.
Nearly 8 years since QE was launched and nearly 5 since commissioned, we are far from seeing anything approaching her full load and sadly, probably never will….. Quite why we built these ships to carry 36/38/42 F35’s is totally beyond me TBH.
I’ll wager a bet that in the not too distant future, the bunch of clowns in power will see this and axe one if not both.
If both these carriers survive in service for the 50 years designed for, I’ll eat not only my hat but a galley full of humble pie.
Jane’s Fighting Ships 2023-2024. United Kingdom: Jane’s Information Group Limited.
They apparently are the source for the over 80,000 ton FULL load displ.
I dont have a copy of the yearbook which is US$2000
Good books, I sometimes pop to the library and browse through them, haven’t done that for a while, might pop in next week…. last time I took a look at “Janes all the worlds fighting ships” (which was a few years ago now) I can’t recall seeing that figure, just the usual 65/72 thousand from memory.
Sure. The MoD has replied to questions in Parliament that 65k t is empty . Their words
My earlier reply with a link to the parliament answer got hung up in moderation because the url is too long
Going from 65 to 80 does push the bounds a bit but I guess it’s entirely possible given the overall dimensions…. do you have something that shows a Ford Class empty verses full so we can see the ratios ?
I could probably find stuff but you seem to be on it like sonic…..
“Dukepidia”…. lol.
Dont really have time for USN stuff, but the comment guidelines do say provide evidence
detailed search parameters provide a whole lot of information quickly, as Im always in a hurry
Infrequent Commentator
Unfortunately, probably due to his overseas parentage, Duker does not understand how the concept of “NATO interoperablity” works out in practice – so he struggles to explain the maths…..
The one and only significant difference in the reported displacement / tonnage of QE and PoW occurs only when our QE carrier is inter-operating with one of our key Nato allies
The US Marine Corps F35 aviators eat far more chips “per sitting” than our own RAF/RN flyers = so many more boxes of chips have to be loaded into the QE stores whenever the RN CSG is supporting USMC flying operations.
So, like everything else in life – what looks really complex is actually really simple to explain…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Unfortunately, probably due to his overseas parentage, Duker
—> China
Travis
Your answer is “nearly there” – but it is not 100% factually correct
Accordingly, to have won today’s Navy Lookout Pub Quiz Question outright = you should have answered “Peoples Republic of China”
i.e. because there is more than one China
Definining that geo-political boundary is why I keep on asking Duker for a chart of the 12-mile-limits in the South China Seas!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Bravo Sir, you hit the nail on the head !!!
His silence is deafening whenever PLAN is mentioned.
Good Grief, “more than one China!”
Can I go for the next round of quiz, please?
Comment guidelines say its not a Chat forum- as you think.
Its about RN not the PLAN so theres nothing to say
What do you think RN initials stand for ?
PLAN, so there’s nothing to say.
But “3 destroyers and 8 Freem frigates plus 4 OPV” of the Italian Navy is perfectly mentionable.
Q.E.D.
Moderators
Moderators
When visiting a friend near the Devonport dockyard I see the Babcock employees in their branded overalls come and go
So you were spying on the submarines and Type23 at Devonport or the Babcock employees in their branded overalls turn you on?
Moderators
Nearly but not quite.
It is actually the extra weight USMC need in the gym 🙂
You have a basic misunderstanding.
The MOD said specifically “empty displacement is 65,000 tons”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ab10786e5274a5e1d62d8bc/2018-01338.pdf
Dont claim a correction when you havent checked and are indeed Wrong.
The NL comment guidelines say , and its a quote
“Feel free to present any opinion, but make your case using facts and evidence.
This is 2024 checking takes 30 sec, if you think the rules dont apply to you …well what can I say
The NL comment guidelines also say “no personal attacks.”
Didn’t you take 30 seconds to check, it is almost 2025.
Moderators
Observation for you based upon ten plus years on sites like this. Virtually no-one puts their real name or email address, just like you… and Admin don’t really moderate unless reported by other non real commentators, there are a few on here that like to report others because they feel victimised but normally it’s because they said something daft and got called out.
These sites are all the same I’m afraid.
Oh and keep up the good work on copy and pasting and alerting Admin to all the multiple accounts/personal attacks, these two traits of yours are super dooper entertainment.
Georgie
Duker completely fails to associate the 2016 event of Brexit….
…when a small island located just off the coast of mainland Europe democratically decided that it did not to be governed by the mainland
…… with the “almost identical situation of the small island of Formosa deciding back in 1948 that it did not want to be governed by mainland communist China
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Therefore, just like Taiwan today – we have a couple of strongholds located just off the coast of mainland Europe: the Channel Islands!
None of that is correct . Both claim to be the only government of all China.
Britain recognised ‘big’ China as the sole government including over its island province back in Jan 1950.
Compared to Singapore Taiwan spends a much smaller fraction of its GDP on defence, why is that ?
‘little’ China also supports the 9 line claim in South China sea and has its own island bases down there-
Itu Aba Island (Taiping)
Pratas (Tungsha) Why is that ?
Look back in history at the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and why were there 2 Sicilies in the first place
As for the Channel islands, which arent part of UK either but owe allegiance to some dude ( even when its a woman) known as Duke of Normandy , but ‘they’ changed their name so ‘they’ dont seem to be able to be found. Some suggest they are also known as Seigneur of the Swans in Britain
It says dont use ‘multiple’ different names, as this person does to avoid being blocked of course ie a sockpuppet , maybe they have used 40 names or more
The other but golden rule is no personal attacks.
BTW have you read the comment guidelines at all ?
The MOD reply said “empty’ not full load. So your correction is also incorrect
Hold on Duker, I wasn’t correcting you, criticising you or trolling you – you’ve responded by saying that Jane’s was the primary source for the upwardly revised displacement figure and that’s good enough for me!
People seem to have latched on to a different FOI request (and response) to the one I’d seen – the one I’m referring to asked for the fully laden displacement when all the spuds etc were stacked aboard:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d871dd6efa830011dcc557/FOI2021-05116.pdf
Does it stand to reason, in light of the question posed by the enquirer, that the MoD must either have got the wrong end of the stick or just didn’t do their homework when responding to this request? In light of this probably erroneous response, can a FOI release even be relied upon?
Interesting point.
2018 they say empty and 2021 they say deep
Clearly one is wrong !
Janes seems to have gone for the higher number for deep.
Im still saying the 65k is the empty number
Agreed! I’d say Jane’s is right too (it should be, for decade upon decade it has been the authority on such matters) and the minion who picked up the FOI enquiry at the MoD in 2021 just has to be poorly informed. I wonder what answer would come back if the same FOI request were to be submitted after CSG25 gets underway?
Still no mention of the use of PODS as an aid to improving the Moral component of OC.
This seems pretty short-sighted given that many weapons and sensor PODS will take years to arrive (combination of budget constraints and complex certification processes) and in the meantime, those spaces will stand empty, instead of the gyms, VR classrooms, AI-enabled teaching spaces, etc that could be cheaply deployed in the meantime (or during quieter periods longer-term).
https://open.substack.com/pub/francisheritage/p/how-does-a-navy-that-strives-for?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=gjmjy
All
The more I read this article, and the more I understood it, the more concerned I became….
…..”Was it orginally supposed to be published on the 1st April?”
——————
During my long career, RN PODS is at least the fourth “allegedly serious” attempt I have seem by the UK / MOD to develop modularised systems:
Today they are called POS. However the standard of thinking going into these particular PODS proposals (i.e. as shown here) is no further advanced than the RN was back in 1984!
————————-
So, for the types of PODS shown in the article above, I offer the following insults
Franky the teenage scribbers who are working for “Navy Develop” need to have their homework marked and then severely failed….and then they should be stood, for a long weight, on the naughty step…
———————-
A Ron has very helpfully posted above, the benchmark today for these naval modular systems must be the Danish -designed Cube units – all lightweight and intermodal – made by SH Defence
There are well over 100 modules in the SH Defence range- some real; some only conceptual.
However these SHD units are only really intended to upgrade a coastal patrol craft up to the capability of a small frigate. There is not very much on offer that will further enhance an already top end warfightlng platform to become even better.
Also, as was quite correctly noted above, would these types of multi-role PODS not be far better suited for fitting into the FMB of a T31 General Purpose frigate: rather than into a T26 dedicated ASW platform?
——————-
However, having just been very rude about a some very nicely-coloured-in, colour-in-by-the-numbers pictograms – what might potentially be very useful for development as a series of RN POD’s should probably be these six modules:
However, as I hinted at above, these six types of potentially very useful functions really ought to be developed as tri-service PODS – so modular units which are quite-easily capable of being airlifted out to anywhere in the world – and then used by any one of our three armed services.
And that will require some very joined up thinking …….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Modularity always makes me laugh. If you talk to Danes they said StanFlex worked for them but not in the ways it is pushed in defence literature. It was more how it helped during refits and ships being re-rolled during that process. Warships aren’t Thunderbird 2.
The modern warships is already modular. The VLS can be fitted with all manner of different modules called missiles. And then there is the ultimate modular, the helicopter. Even the carousel feeding modern gun systems that allows selection of different natures or types is another example of modularity.
It makes me smile that BAE are pushing this mission bay business whereas the overall design hampers helicopter operations. T26 should have been built to operate 4 Merlin sized cabs easily.
Two hangar doors:
Extensive flight desk:
I am wondering why among the suggested podule designs there is no gym or additional cold storage option which is probably what the space will be used for mostly after aviation support? And why the RN building a GP warship is a sensation leaves me baffled too.
“Modularity always makes me laugh” ….. Huh, you have a sense of humour ? well there’s a thing, never noticed that in all the Thousands and Thousands and Thousands of comments you have made over the years…… Oh and just a quick heads up, your old sparring partner is actively grassing up all the false email and multiple account holders, just sayin X.
HDMS Esbern Snare photo doesnt show the actual helicopter it was sized for, the NH90 or The Lynx
Most people dont realise how much bigger the Merlin is.
The really clever part for Denmark was this
Its about RN not the HDMS.
What do you think RN initials stand for?
Your silence is deafening on PLAN.
Merlin. They are Merlin capable. I know how big Merlin is thank you. I remember the first time I saw one aboard Ocean.
The picture shows two hangar doors. It was nothing to do with a specific helicopter.
I agree with a lot of your points but a couple of technical quibbles:
Who says the mission bay doors have to be closed the whole time? The roof and, to a certain extent, the sides, protect the equipment inside (which I assume would be corrosion resistant anyway) from heavy weather.
On a relatively sunny Pacific deployment the doors could be “open by default” and only closed when heavy weather is approaching, rather than only opened when an enemy is near.
WRT the towed array, the SH Cube concepts show the array drum on a sort of “davit” extended out of the side door of the mission bay. “Side towed”, as it were.
IMO we ought to just buy into Cube. It’s an open source system, so it shouldn’t cost too much to implement, but it gives a lot of extra options in terms of movement.
The system itself mainly pertains to moving the containers around. Scissor lifts, rails for inside the mission bay, that sort of thing.
At the moment, the MBHS on T26 doesn’t have the weight capacity for fully loaded containers or larger boats, so we should introduce a system (the scissor lifts) with higher capacity.
Similarly, a single TEU isn’t that much volume. Cube lets you go up to a 2x2x2 arrangement of them, which is enough for a fully sized XLUUV such as Cetus with davits. I don’t know how tall and wide the doors are, but it certainly looks like internally that there’s height for two containers.
Flipping heck, just what sort of school are you at ? Wise beyond your 16 years.
Smiley face !
ITS BACK TO THE FUTURE (AGAIN)!
Sailorboy
I shall now mark your GCSE homeework, giving you scores as follows
Round 1
“Who says the mission bay doors have to be closed the whole time?
Round 1 scores a very easy, and very well deserved – F
Round 2
“At the moment, the MBHS on T26 doesn’t have the weight capacity for fully loaded containers or larger boats, so we should introduce a system (the scissor lifts) with higher capacity”.
Round 2 scores a C minus
Round 3
“show the array drum on a sort of “davit” extended out of the side door of the mission bay. “Side towed”, as it wer”e.
With today’s ASW techology, the flying cab is by far and away the best type of mobile ASW platform
so, as the RN T26 is designated as a specailist ASW asset, fitted with its own sonars
….You should have agreed wih the Zookeeper = and said the FMB space on the T26 could be much better used for keeping another ASW whirrybird in the warm and dry
Round 3 scores a D
Round 4
“I agree with a lot of your points”
As comedian Spike Millian one said to Prince Charles – now head of state:
You Grovelling B*******D
Bing Videos
Round 4 therefore scores a very easy A
PS Had you said “all of my points” it would definitely have been an A plus; with merit and distinction and definite promotion to “Head Boy” (Note 1)
————————
Conclusion
You are far too imagainative to be well-qualified for serving in any of the technical branches of the RN.
You think far too deeply!
You could potentially go very far…….this type of muddled thinking always goes down very well inside MOD / DES = it usually receives a lucrative research grant
So,when you eventually leave junior high school in a few years time, I suggest you apply to Qinetiq, using this link
Careers – QinetiQ
Therefore, in about ten years time, you will be colouring in pictograms of NGP (note 2) for “Navy Develop”
I look forward to “critiquing your future homework” here on Navy Lookout in 2025
Merry Christmas!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
I got out of bed on the wrong side: then I stubbed my toe this morning = so I am even more irate than normal! = so please don’t take it too personally. Also don’t sulk and suck your thumb!
Note 1;
It is all so very confusing these days…….Does Sailorbouy now get promoted to haed Boy or Head Bouy: or should itt be to Head Girl?
Note 2- TLA = NGP
Next Generation PODS – definitely the thing for the Royal Navy in the 2050’s!
…….Just as Arachophobia was when I was your age – back in the 1980’s
You said that you wouldn’t be able to fire weapons if the door jammed. That wouldn’t happen if the door was left open, as no door-related action would need to happen to open fire.
The scissor lift thing re Cube is shore side equipment. It lifts modules up to the side of the mission bay and engages with the rails in the bay itself.
At risk of being a grovelling B*****d, I also think that using the mission bay for ASW drones is the most viable means of assisting T26s at present. That includes surface drones and UUVs as well as UAVs.
I am inclined to agree with AlexS that it should have two hangar doors in the first place, but we can at least try to exploit the extra space for another helicopter.
P.S. It’s “School Captain” at my place at the moment.
Mulligan never said it to Prince Charles face.
It was some TV show or award … or This is your life or something , where a host reads out written compliments from other notables
Of course the stage, TV and film industry is awash with ‘love your work’.
Cant say the same about yours !
Duker
Plenty of people reading Navy Lookout love my jokes…..
………especially when I choose to TTM out of you!
So – here I go again……
One of the great things about living here in the UK is that Spike Milligan could call our future head of state a grovelling little bar steward and not get severly punished
That seems to be a concept you really struggle to understand…
Had Spike Milligan been living in any one of these four countries, this is probably what would have happened to him after he had spoken out at an awards dinner
Russian Empire
Iranian Empire
North Korea
People’s Republic Of China
(Important Note – not ever to be confused with Taiwan)
FINALLY
If you feel I might have offended you with this post.. …….
……….then please feel free to appeal
…..either to the NL Editor
……….OR to the international court of human rights ,
……….you can easily google the ICHR address…
…………just like you google everything else…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. TTM – Taking The Micky
A derogatory phrase dating from the beginning of the 20th century
I understand that the phrase TTM was quite recently used on Breakfast TV by the Israeli PM = so that explains why diplomatic relations have just been broken off between Israel and Ireland.
Hat off to you, Sir Peter, for risking the wrath of the Dukedom.
Im not offended at all, nor did I say so.
Just that SM didnt say it to the prince of Wales face as you claimed.
Those 3 countries you mention I dont know of their penal code,
My grandchildren love those old Spider films….. They Weave a tangled web when they plan to deceive….. !!!!