RN new Type 26 impression
 

BBC News - MoD reveals design of Royal Navy future warships

they're aiming for 5400 tons and a buy of 13

I'll put money on 6500 tons and a buy of 6

The UAV hangar has been removed and replaced with a manned aircraft hangar !!!!!

...with an accompanying press release stating that we need so few because they're just soooo much more capable than the old ones.:ok:

.... but with an ISD ahead of the F34B! :E

I see that the new vessels are described as "Global Combat Ships" rather than "frigates". Another example of the "why use one word when three will do" Americanisation of the English language. Sigh......

Very pretty. But, Military Aviation?

a) they will fly helicopters if we have any left

b) they are in competition for defence dollars that may be needed for the carriers

c) part of the UK overall armed forces and so we need to know what the MoD are up to with our money

e) they will have some anti-air capability (maybe)

Where are they going to be built? given that Scotland may soon be going its own way will we see a return of warship building on the Mersey?

in bits all over the place according to the Beeb

I take your points, Harry, but this ain't realy aviation.

Courtney

On the other hand, it is military, which is something this forum is usually sadly lacking....

. . . cruiser?

Fair enough. It's military and it's interesing.

....cruiser?
ISTR when the County Class GMD's were proposed, being cruiser size, they were listed as destroyers, as it, "sounded cheaper than a cruiser".:ok:

Light cruiser surely??

Keep going guys, by page three we will have a full battleship :E


Mach Two

Without the boat to park on and those above the turnover rate in both crews and helicopters would be pretty high.. So it is relevant.

Sounds good; so long as they are capable of being in more than one place at the same time.

Amusingly, it's a greater displacement than a T42 Batch 3. It's a not exactly a T21 frigate - not necessarily a bad thing, but the RN need to think pretty carefully about this as if there's a bill bigger than say £500m each then they're likely to get.... not a lot.

Really, one assumes that the RN need probably 25-30 FF/DD hulls, which with 6 (Count 'em!) T45s, either they need another 6 T45s and then a build of 18 T26s at one every nine months or so. Alternatively six T45s + 22 T26s.

However, can't see it somehow. Too bad for the fisheads, and the rest of us.

S41

More the size of a Type 82 than anything else
Any we all know what happened to the plans for those...

the only answer to getting a lot of cheap hulls is to go overseas and buy a dozen or so of something already in production AND STOP THE RN from "upgrading" them before delivery

Global Combat Ship may look silly, but if you want to export it, it's a destroyer to the navy that wants to sound big and scary, and a frigate to the navy which wants to sound frugal.

Could some one kindly explain to me why you need a vessel of 5400 tons to put to sea a gun, a missile silo and a helicopter?

The RN will be lucky to get 8!

Ok Biggus, how much detail would you like?

"Could some one kindly explain to me why you need a vessel of 5400 tons to put to sea a gun, a missile silo and a helicopter?"

Biggus - wah shield on! You could put this on a smaller vessel, but time has shown that smaller vessels tend to be more difficult to upgrade through their lives. One of the limitations on current ships (T23s) is that they are at the very upper margins of their design limits, and we are limited on what we can do with them.

More space means its easier to upgrade over their lifespan, cheaper to fit new equipment (no immensely complex refits to plug new capability into, aka Leander mid life updates). It also means more space to add new capability over time to allow the ship to carry out new roles, not forseen at the time of design.

Other considerations include the space allowing for better living conditions, which is a major retention issue - no point having lots of ships if the highly trained, highly educated crew, who could walk outside to a much better paying civvy street job, aren't staying in. We'd just end up with lots of gapped posts, and less effective vessels.

Tourist,

As much as you have the time/energy/enthusiasm to write.

Perhaps you might also like to add your thoughts on where the money to buy them will come from...


Jimlad,

If your able to say so, what modifications were under consideration for Type 23s that couldn't be carried out due to lack of space/weight?

Phalanx for one. Its also a question of available deckspace as well.

I love the 'Due to enter service after 2020' part. That way, they can never be accused of being late!

Jimlad makes some good points - the early type 42's were probably too small for all the gubbins they loaded on to it

the answers might be to accept less capability but the Admiralty wnat a ship capable of fighting at the top level - when 99% of its life it'll be chasing Somali's and drug runners or acting as a relief vessel

Well, I thought from the thread title that a humorous 'my impression of boat' joke was on the cards. I was quite disappointed to find a serious thread.

CWD

Steel's not that expensive. Even marine propulsion hardware isn't anything like military aero engines in terms of price per unit of power. People are one big driver in ship through-life costs, and another is upgrading.