Type 26

Attached: Screenshot_20190212-010224.jpg (1440x872, 512K)

>Slavs on suicide watch.

THE CLAW

Welcome to condition Zebra!!!!!! Have fun akula!!!!!!

Brits will have the best version, Aussies second and Canucks the third.

Judging by radars, VLS amount, missiles

Attached: T26 Aus ver.jpg (640x1137, 484K)

Better looking that the doorstop that is the USS Zumwalt.

Source ?
From what i read it was the opposite (Can>aus>uk) by tonnage(nothing specific about radars or armament yet so can only go by the proposed tonnage)

OOOOOOOooooooOOOO

Ive seen old fishing boats that look better then the zumwalt.

Should have built a barge to get rid of the sandjews.

She is very exportable and is making us a lot of money!

It's no Zumwalt

Don't have sources but from the spec sheets and armaments that I've read about it was pretty clear the Brit one would be the best, then Aus then a somewhat weaker Canadian ship

The UK one has a much larger VLS amount with a dedicated VLS rack behind the bridge stack. Canada had the least amount of VLS cells

The mission bay is highly customizable.

Australia chose it for its ASW capabilities. Gotta find those Chicom subs.

I genuinely believe BAE is the best equipment developer and manufacturer in the world.

It looks cool.

I just hope we can get at least a couple in service and at least one of our new subs in the water before WW3 kicks off

She's taken more than 20 years to gestate, but somehow has been a massive success after only entering the market in a short period.

There's still a possibility of her being able to join the USN's FFG(X).

We have until 2030, so we'll have a few out by then, just wish we went with the Astute class rather than shortfin

>5" gun
>Strike length Mk41
Honestly more than I was expecting as a Canadian.

BAE did not offer the Astute class in the AUS tender for varying reasons including export restrictions and building capacity.

Well it wasn't offered simply because it did not meet the list of requirements that were outlined under SEA 1000, which includes that it has to be conventionally powered as opposed to nuclear powered.

And yes as you say there are restrictions, only due to the nuclear aspect of it and if the smelly greens didn't kick up such a stink about it that restriction would not exist.

If there were no restrictions in place, the Astute would be the wisest choice.

It's not even the Greens anymore, it's everyone. No one seems to care or has an appetite for nuclear energy or nuclear technology and related high-tech jobs, a real pathetic shame imo.

Regardless of the choice of submarine, going nuclear when your country have NOTHING nuclear related except the mining of Uranium would have been a gigantic mistake.
The costs associated with a nuclear submarine are not trivial. They are easier to absorb when some energy in your country come from this source (UK, France, India,...) as there is already some technical knowledge and know-how.
But jumping from no civil nuclear to nuclear subs (the hardest nuclear of all, due to size and complexity) would have been the equivalent of shooting in both feet with a 12 gauge

Canada here. We can't even afford a fucking ice-breaker or decent subs but we're expected to lay down 15 of these fucking things?

Trudeau has his head so far up his has he can count his teeth from the inside. And we're gonna fly Sea King's off the back of this? Fuck off.

No, if BAE thought they could offer a conventional submarine derived from a nuclear (exactly the same as Naval Group and the Attack class's nuclear sisters) they would.

In maybe an ideal world AUDF would get SSNs, but that still may have not lead to an offer by BAE.

As others have already said, the entry and sustainment price for some is just not worth it, even if environmentals weren't in the picture.

UK Variant:
Mk45 5 inch gun
24 Cell Mk41 VLS
48 Cell Sea Ceptor VLS (CAMM) (2x 24 cell arrangements, one close to the bow, another amidships)
2x DS30M MK2 30mm guns
2x Phalanx CIWS (starboard and port amidships)
2x Miniguns 7.62mm
4x GPMG 7.62mm
Homing Torpedoes (Spearfish)
Chinook capable flight deck
Hangar for 2x Wildcat or 1x Merlin (ASW/ASuW)
Bow + Towed Sonar
Chaff Launchers
Sea Sentor Torpedo Defence System
Floating Decoy Launchers

Attached: Type-26 CITY CLASS B.jpg (1600x720, 225K)

>names like a Chinese ship
>built with Chinese steel
>with a Chinese crane

IMPRESSIVE

You forgot the secondary hangar which can be used for UAVs, and also there are rumours that the modular mission bay can be configured for weapons, e.g. fleet air defence or even missile canisters.

BAE described it being capable of housing 4x 12 metre boats and shipping containers, as well as housing "capability modules". Hopefully that means stacking it to the brim with as many harpoons as possible for missile spam.

Will 8 of the frigates (plus the 6 Darlings) will seriously be enough to escort both the UK's two carriers alongside their international commitments?

I'm not sure that amount of boats or storage options are applicable with the UK model with that 24-cell VLS in it?

There are 6 Type 45 Destroyers and 13 other Frigates in service.
That's enough for a rotating CSG.

the entire royal navy is just going to be a one or two carrier strike group if SHTF or if falklands 2

apart from that, they'll just use minimal escorts during peace time

Will probably be a lot of instances where escorts are not RN, RCN or RAN will undoubtedly provide.

Correct.

Hopefully this means the option of putting more VLS in as needed is available.

Attached: Screenshot_20190212-094951_Chrome.jpg (598x1181, 193K)

>48 sea ceptor
>no Aster
It was nice knowing you though!

Embarrassing

The Renhai alone can take out a dozen of this. It's a waste of tax payer's money.

Sea Cepter is enough for local/point defence anything further and that's Type 45 territory.

"Close all watertight hatches."

"Sorry, Skipper. Our giant 20 foot high vertically opening door is slightly askew and won't seal. "

*sinks*

It's not only about point defense and the size of the area covered.
It's more about the variety of threat that can be treated with it.
And the sea ceptor is cheap and kinda efficient against aircraft but will be completely useless against a fast moving AShM.

Easy user, he'll be out by the years end

>It's not only about point defense and the size of the area covered.
No, it's about what is required for its role.
Given a British Type 26's role is of primary ASW and not AAW, being able to cover itself and the local inlay is acceptable. If there is such an environment that what is provisioned is insufficient, that is an operational matter.

Providing AAW is not their role, other ships exist for that purpose.

>It's more about the variety of threat that can be treated with it.
You cannot not have ships that can deal with every possible threat equally. It just isn't possible - there are design limitations, funding. There must be prioritization.
>And the sea ceptor is cheap and kinda efficient against aircraft but will be completely useless against a fast moving AShM.
I doubt that Sea Cepter is "useless" given deal with AShMs are part of its role.

***dealing with

There are design that can do all of it, namely Burke-class for example. They are expensive, heavy and very hard to export. That's why they are very rare.
I understand that it is a ship made for anti-submarine warfare. It is a design choice and as you said, you can't have every capability on a 6000 tonnes ship.
However, thinking that a sea ceptor can protect you against high-end supersonic AShM will be pure tomfoolery. Not even talking about SRBM.
That mean you can't deploy a t-26 by itself unless the overall sky is completely under control and no other threat can pop up at a very large distance.

>There are design that can do all of it, namely Burke-class for example

Congratulations. you just made yourself look stupid.

>However, thinking that a sea ceptor can protect you against high-end supersonic AShM will be pure tomfoolery.

It was literally designed to allow a smaller ship to deal with a saturation missile attack from multiple angles. You've just decided that you don't want it to be good and are pulling unsupported claims out your ass to try and back it up.

>We have until 2030
W-what happens in 2030 user?

ASW, long-range strike, air defense, balistic missile defense
I don't know, you tell me?
The only things I can think of would be carrying planes and carrying amphibious assault

Following, a list of the missile class a Ciws and sea ceptor can intercept :
-subsonic missiles
Don't you wait too long for anything else

You realise half of them don't even have a hanger? And From flight IIA onwards there are no Harpoon launchers or towed sonars.

Even the ones that do have a towed array do not have a modern variable depth system. Plus with the poorly optimised propulsion arrangement and outdated hull form it will be of little use as an ASW escort.

you're doing it again, you're talking out your ass.

Are you deliberately ignoring the Sea Ceptor design requirement? Saturation attack was literally specified from the outset - which is why they are active missiles that dont rely on radar iluminators.

>Burke-class for example
Congratulations, you named a destroyer class that displaces 1000 tonnes more than Type 26, when we're talking about suitable armament for Frigates.
Unlike other places in Europe where things like Horizon-class are called "Frigates", in the Royal Navy Frigate=/=Destroyer.

kek

Stop buy British shit.
Pic related is a better class for antisubmarine hunt. In particular, is the best class for this role currently commissioned.

Attached: 2560px-JS_Asahi(DD-119)_at_Mitsubishi_Heavy_Industries_Nagasaki_Shipyard_November_25,_2017_02.jpg (2559x1440, 757K)

The Asahi class variant of Akizuki class was a better choice, change my mind.

The previous post did not mention Destroyer or Frigate.
Now to the question, can a 6000 tonne ship can have all the previously mentioned capabilities?
An example comes to mind: the FREMM with the Aster-B1NT. But it's no sm-3, I'll give you that.

>You realise half of them don't even have a hanger?
Point taken, I didn't knew that before Flight IIA it was only a landing platform. On the other hand the last flight II was commissioned 20 years ago and 38 out of 66 in commission have said hangar.
>And From flight IIA onwards there are no Harpoon launchers
But vls for lrasm
>or towed sonars.
Doesn't mean no ASW capabilities. Those were replaced by the embarked helicopters
>Even the ones that do have a towed array do not have a modern variable depth system. Plus with the poorly optimised propulsion arrangement and outdated hull form it will be of little use as an ASW escort.
And what would that be?

Again, nothing against this missile.
It's just that it is not made to intercept fast incoming missile.
On the other hand, it is cheap and can make a great deal of problems to any air force coming it's way.
Heck, if the enemy is trying a saturation attack with harpoons, they may very well be more than enough!
But again, a supersonic AShM will pierce through it just like it'll pierce through ciws

I'll even go and point out that the RN is now convinced that the future of AShM is supersonic.
If you don't believe me, I encourage you to read further on the FCASW and to wait for the upcoming key review.

There’s no reason to think it can’t engage a supersonic target. Hell even RAM, a much less capable missile, has knocked down supersonic missiles in tests.

At least Canadians get a good ship. They can't do internal procurement for shit.

>Canada actually spending money on defence
What is this sorcery?

Halifax-class is just fine. We just need more than 12 of them.

>chinks are buying 15 type 26s
Hope the curries and lebos are up to the challenge with our enemies being so close and well prepared.

If you gotta worry about a hole that's 15 feet above the waterline then you're already fucked.

>It's just that it is not made to intercept fast incoming missile.

This is the third and final time I will say this, intercepting these sorts of targets was part of the design specification.

Helicopters are no substitute for a towed array, the two need to work in conjunction. The towed array detects a contact from many miles away, which then gives the helicopter a small area to search for localising the target.

No, their starting to see some pretty serious wear and tear, considering of those 12 at least 4 of them are in dry dock most of the year. Unless they're willing to spend the money to do a full refit (if Justine wins, they wont) I expect a few them to start heading to the breakers as early as 2021

>There are design that can do all of it, namely Burke-class for example. They are expensive, heavy and very hard to export. That's why they are very rare.
No, almost all middle priced warships and above can perform a range of roles - that's not my point. However, there are limits on how well they can perform them.

So let's take the Burke class as the example you've given as others have mentioned, the early flights skipped on hangers.

However, there's another aspect for example that inpacts their capabilities for ASW. The size and placement of their AN/SPY-1 radars with its associated equipment like processing and cooling are heavy. This doesn't given it much of a margin for weight to be stored higher.

Why does this matter you ask?

Because it impacts the placement of other equipment, say like, engines. Do you know that ASW ships place their engines higher? Sound dampening.

Now, could it be possible Burkes generate the same exact amount of noise as a Type 26? Sure, but I doubt it given it likely adds on complexity and expense for what are probably marginal gains.

So just consider these two things I noted.

>heavy and very hard to export. That's why they are very rare. I understand that it is a ship made for anti-submarine warfare. It is a design choice and as you said, you can't have every capability on a 6000 tonnes ship.
Okay, great so what is the complaint?
>However, thinking that a sea ceptor can protect you against high-end supersonic AShM will be pure tomfoolery.
If you would like to educate us please, instead of repeating that line?
>Not even talking about SRBM.
Now you're being silly.
>That mean you can't deploy a t-26 by itself unless the overall sky is completely under control and no other threat can pop up at a very large distance.
Clearly the RN disagrees and since they know the capabilities of the class better than us, I am sure they are well founded in knowing what it can do.

Too bad they are a bit big for FFG(X), we could have had a common anglo fleet.

Your information about towed sonars on Burkes is just a wee bit dated.

I believe they already finished a deal for new ice breakers didn't they ? And the sea king has already been replace with the ch-124 cyclone

It's better looking than a zumwalt but that's not saying much.

It's sort of a mix.

British one has the most silos and a distributed silo system, Aussie one has probably the best radar.

Aside from that they're honestly pretty identical. Which is a huge advantage for the nations to share components, knowledge, and crew transfers.

>Homing Torpedoes (Spearfish)

UK variant does not have Spearfish. It carries ASROC, and has Stingrays for the helo to use.

City class is Chinese?

Source on it using Chinese steel?

And which crane on the Clyde is Chinese?

It is fully applicable. The CAMM silos do not penetrate the mission bay footprint.

>but will be completely useless against a fast moving AShM

[Citation Needed]

FFG(X) doesn't really have a size mandate. Only capability, complement, and cost. It's unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

Attached: Type 26 mission bay hangar link.jpg (725x408, 75K)

It it confirmed to get ASROC? Since that plant got shut down back in 2013.

Do they need more if they have a stockpile?

The UK doesn’t have any to my knowledge.

UK Has no interest in ASROC, air dropped weapons and snap shot tubes on the ship are the better option.

Aussie version has 32xMk41 + 8xHarpoon, UK has 24xMk41 + 48xSea Ceptor.

If you consider that sea ceptors can be quad packed and work out the number of Mk41 VLS required to hold the ships entire missile load, the Aussie one comes out at 40 Mk41 equivalent and the UK one comes out at 36 equivalent.

I wonder if it would be possible to replace the two banks of 24 sea ceptors with additional 24xMk41 VLS.

If it were, this thing of beauty could end up with 72 Mk41s

Bad math, they are quad packed like ESSM. It's equal to 12 Mk41 cells.

On T26 they are going to be in a mushroom farm of 48 individual tubes like on T23, not quad packed.

Right but the equivalent quantity of CAMM in Mk41 is 12 cells.

Your logic is retarded.

It's about space taken up.

Attached: 15453247170650.jpg (229x377, 15K)

We can afford actually afford all of those, and more. Our government just chooses not to.

So twelve self defense length Mk41 cells.

>weebshit
No thanks

Except the ship doesn't have any snap shot tubes. So its only option is the ASROC or some weapon of a similar nature (Japan has one too, whom the UK is quite close with on missiles these days).

Fallon stated many times in parlimentry answers that Anti-Submarine Rockets/Missiles were a major consideration. There's been no statement otherwise since.

Good note, I forgot about the canisters. Good on the Aussies. What does Australia have on its helos missile wise for the Navy? I figure part of the reason the UK is happy to have slightly less silos is because of things like Sea Venom they launch via the helo.

Also, doesn't the Aussie one also have torpedoes come to think?

Space on deck isn't a problem. It's space beneath them that matters more than anything to fit the much larger Mk41 subsystems. The CAMM launcher is TINY.

Of course, maybe there is space. I do not know if there is or is not. Just stating a point. The midship one probably has no issues, since that can penetrate into the mission bay if needs be.

Pic related is a slightly older design than the final one, different silo design for CAMM, but you can see the rough space differences of a 24x Mk41 layout to the 24x CAMM.

Attached: Type 26 Global Combat Ship.png (1200x1198, 789K)

24 CAMM will fit in six Mk41.