Mike (we love you guy...where ever you are) over at New Wars was right when he predicted the troubles with the Type 26 Frigate.
Read his article here.
If the planners were to skip the Type 26 altogether and proceed directly to the lower end version of the Future Surface Combatant design, they might possess a vessel more relevant for future threats. Rather than hundreds of millions, vessels costing in the tens of million pounds seem the right answer for today’s threats. Most importantly, you could build a whole squadron of such vessels for the price of a single Type 26.What brings me to this conclusion?
Read this from Defense Watch.
It looks like the Global Combat Ship is dead in the water, from the Canadian perspective at least. That also seems to go for any UK-Canadian collaboration on future ships.Without Canadian participation, I can't see how this ship will escape the budget axe thats swinging over at the UK's Ministry of Defense. I would almost bet that Canadian participation was seen as a shield against the possibility of it being cut. That doesn't exist anymore.
Seems like the days of smaller, less complex ships is about to dawn.
Mike at New Wars must be smiling, laughing at those like me that doubted him and pouring himself another glass of what ever drink he likes (probably iced tea).
Type 26 has been in the pipline now for a number of years in various guises,and to suggest that one article by a Canadian defence correspondent will scupper it is absolute nonsense.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how dire the financial constraints are in the UK,do you seriously think that this programme is reliant on Canadian participation.
Even the notion of that is laughable.
We are certainly looking at,for the first time in years to build a vessel of this size that has export potential but it will be an uphill struggle.
Whilst our government(s) have presided over the run down of our military shipbuilding the French,Italians and Spanish have cornered the export market in Europe as far as building military vessels.
T26 will be built for the RN in one form or another and I would welcome something smaller in larger numbers,but to suggest it is dead in the water due to Canadian non involvement is pure fantasy.
spirited defense but do you really believe that??
ReplyDeletethink about it. for the next few years the RAF is being reduced to one type of fighter/attack aircraft type....yes i know that the Tornado continues but i can see that getting axed quite easily.
UK's tank forces ... once arguably the greatest and best equipped in Europe are about to be reduced to a battalion (-) worth of tanks.
the Royal Navy is already shedding ships and appears to be mortgaging its future on the desire to get carriers...oh and those carriers are to have airplanes which are going to come out of the Navy budget.
will the RN afford or justify a ship that is going to carry out two of the three missions that the Type 26 will perform? land attack/anti-shipping and air defense missions.
your argument that this ship is safe is beyond laughable. its wishful thinking.
You might get the ship. And if you are lucky it might even have a 4.5inch gun and a surface to air missile system too.
ReplyDeleteThe way things are going however, like T45 it won't have an anti-ship missile system. Nor a close in weapon system, nor a long ranged land attack missile system, no precision guided munition capability for the 4.5inch gun and no ship-launched torpedo launch system...
In order words, just a very heavy, impressive looking patrol ship that can do little more than fend off attacks against it...
Aussie Digger...
ReplyDeleteexactly!
all of which add to it being a target of not only the bean counters but the other services as well.
Considering the lessons the British learned during the Falklands, it is puzzling that they don't put close-in weapon systems on all of their ships.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall right, all of the Board of Inquiry reports dealing with sunken ships from that war made it very clear: Close-in weapon systems are essential, not optional.
You may have the greatest confidence in your ability to deal with enemy threats at long, medium, and even short range, but something will always get through. If you don't prepare for that, people will die and ships will be lost.
Yes I do believe it,you are quite right in your assessment of the current situation in the UK but the operative words of yours are 'for the next few years'.
ReplyDeleteWhilst the SDSR is causing huge debate and we all wish it didn't have to happen,the truth is that it is needed.
The RAF has in Typhoon a first class (albeit expensive) aircraft,it is planned to keep Tornado until 2015 when we will see it go by which time Typhoon numbers will be sufficient.
They are also getting Multi Role Tanker/Transport aircraft to replace the venerable VC10 and Tristar as well as A400 which after a rough few years is sailing ahead with its flight trials and I believe will be a great aircraft.
If there is one thing that we can get rid of it is our heavy armour,we are not for the foreseeable future going to see hordes of Russian troops pouring through the Fulda Gap,and if we are going to base our future on expeditionary warfare then they will be of low priority.
The above reason is why we need CVF you can't project power without carriers,yes we are most definately taking a gamble for the next few years but for once I think long term gains will justify the drastic surgery that is now taking place.
Canadian involvement is neither here nor there,strange you didn't give any mention of that being as it was the headline.
As for 'New Wars' we all know that one of Mikes main themes was his intense dislike of large ships,in fact as far as carriers were concerned he was almost obsessively against them.
In the end it appeared that anything above Corvette size was a no no,his idea of mother ships and swarms of small vessels operating from them was one of his favourites.
So anything like T26 was going to be in his sights.
Hopefully we will both be around for the next few years,so only time will tell and I am convinced T26 will be built.
We are having to cut our cloth accordingly,and your own forces are now being forced to do the same,which for the most powerfull military in the world puts our problems into perspective.
Aussie Digger,
ReplyDeleteYes but our ships will be able to go to sea when they are needed !
As for T45,give it a couple of years and you will see it evolve into a first class vessel.
It is already wired up for CIWS,has space for extra missile silo's and deck space for SSM's.
The point is that under the present financial conditions we got the basic ship to sea,it can be fitted with the rest as and when.
Not wishing to be churlish but I don't think that in light of the Aussie record on Naval defence procurement,that you are in any position to criticise the UK.
Aussie D
ReplyDeleteYour criticism of T45 is fair, but only to a point and it is the debate between specialism and general purpose that frames those criticisms
T45 is an area air defence destroyer, not sure it actually needs anti ship missiles for example, especially given the likely ROE constraints on using them.
The T45 goes down the specialist road and whilst I agree it would be nice to have a decent main gun, Harpoon or ASW torpedoes the fact is the RN has to make tough decisions and it has chosen to concentrate the cash in the air defence system, which, lets be honest, is a generation beyond anyone elses system and that includes AEGIS.
What upsets me more than the lack of secondary weapons is the limited silo fit, limited real world testing on Aster and lack of CEC
I think the CIWS will be transferred to the T45's from other ships as they are withdrawn.
Its not ideal, but its a pragmatic decision in light of a reduced defence vote and the RN's insistence on bringing CVF into service, cost over runs in Astute and other projects.
T45 is good, but it could be the best with a relatively modest extra investment and this is the same story with most UK defence projects, we aim high, get their, but at an unacceptable cost that results in the job never really being finished.
That said, its only just coming into service and has a lot of growth potential.
On T26, we are supposed to be sharing with Canada, Brazil, Australia and almost anyone with a navy, or so it would seem!
We've had our problems with our subs and amphibious ships no doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteBut our frigates have no problems going to sea with a decent gun.
They have decent, operationally proven anti-ship missile capabilities.
They have a strong, operationally proven anti-air warfare capability. They have a working, proven surface to air missile and they have proven, operational anti-submarine torpedo capabilities and the One Billion pound per ship T45 does not...
The T45 might look better on paper than some AEGIS equipped vessels in the air defence role only of course (which variant might be up for some discussion though) but on paper capability doesn't mean squat compared to real world capability, if you have to go to war tomorrow...
A T45 can't go into a high threat environment today because neither it's missiles nor radar aren't proven or even operational. Every AEGIS equipped ship at sea in the world today can.
Now T45 is a developmental vessel and I argue in favour of the F-35 because it IS developmental too and can't be expected to be at the same level of maturity as aircraft developed a decade or a generation earlier and because of this I won't criticise the T45 too heavily, I am sure it will develop into a fine class, but it isn't there yet.
Funny how many times people have told the world that they've come up with something "better" than the AEGIS combat system. I think the fact that AEGIS is proven and has been in-service for nearly 30 years, but is still held as the benchmark by which all other combat systems are measured, is rather a point in it's favour.
If you choose AEGIS for your new destroyer/frigate you know you are getting proven, outstanding capability. AEGIS has been sold to 6 navies, has been updated god knows how many times and is continuing this on trend and it is deployed on active operations today with more than 100 ships at sea and has been proven time and time again under operational conditions. It has capabilities that NO other naval combat system in the world has (where is T45's SM-3 equivalent?)
The problem with "fitting for but not with" is that it is a bean counter solution. Not a warfighter solution. You go to war with the military you have, not the military you might want and the T45 cannot go to war in it's current configuration.
It is a liability at the present time and to suggest that stripping capabilities from other vessels will enable them to, is a fools hope.
Australia might not have chosen the bleeding edge for it's Air Warfare Destroyers, but when they enter service, they will have a great gun with precision guided munitions. They will have anti-ship missile capabilities. They will have long ranged land attack and anti-submarine torpedo capabilities. They will have a layered air defence with ESSM and SM-2 missiles AND they will have CIWS capability from day dot.
They may even have a newer and much more capable area air defence missile in comparison to the T45, depending on how development of the SM-6 proceeds, but they will get this missile, before the T45 gets a new missile.
Given then the problems that T45 has had and the reduced funding environment in future years, things do not bode well for T26...
The UK MoD's motto is "Fitted for but not with"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteNo,the UK's motto is and always has been 'adaptability' and it has served us well and will continue to do so.
Aussie Digger,
ReplyDeleteAll your 'proven' systems have performed excellently in trials if we are to believe the authorities,i.e the USA.
I am not saying for one moment that Aster is a better system than Aegis,you have answered your own question by stating that Aegis has 30yrs of development behind it.
Give PAAMS half that time and you will see a world beating system.
The equivilent to SM3 is already being developed, in fact the land based version has already succesfully carried out trials in it's ABM mode and is being progressed into a naval version.
To say that T45 cannot go to war in its current configuration is nonsense,I cannot justify any other comment on your statement.
The UK is at this moment working up its T45's and by the time you get your much vaunted AAW destroyers to sea we will have a proven cutting edge destroyer.
The most telling thing in you
r statement is 'when they enter service'.
As far as I am aware the first keel to be laid by an Australian shipyard for your new AAW ships was to put it crudley 'Bent' and has had to be scrapped.
Once again I ask you not to criticise the UK when you defence is in such dire straits.
When you cannot even look after your own people in your own country due to your ships being out of action is pathetic,so how do you go about defending your country against an enemy?
Michael, you are ill-informed. It was not the 'keel' and it was not 'scrapped'. It simply had to be modified. You are correct insofar as it was not manufactured perfectly, but before you get too full of British pride and start up with God save the Queen, why don't you check out which company it was that stuffed up this keel block?
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a hint. It uses an acronym of 3 letters that are phonetically written: Bravo Alpha Echo, the very same company as built the T45 I believe...
Not to blow the colonial trumpet too loudly, but there are 3 companies builsing AWD keel blocks in Australia. 2 are domestic companies and one is British.
2 companies have built their keel blocks satisfactorily and one, as outlined above, has not. I believe that is described as a FAIL on these here intertubes...
Aussie Digger,
ReplyDeleteYes BAE owns a large part of the Australian defence industry,now are you going to tell me that the people carrying out the work are British?
Of course not they are Australians.
I also notice that you have singularly failed to respond in regards to the readiness?? of your naval vessels in time of crisis.
Why on earth you brought up T45 I am at a loss to know,They are progressing satisfactorily and will perform outstandingly,lets see if your AWD's do the same.
What is wrong with having pride in my country,don't you have the same for yours.
The statement re 'colonial trumpet' reveals the chip on your shoulder,get over it mate the sooner you are a republic the better.
Then you can apply to be another state of the USA as thats the way your heading.
Dear Aussie Digger
ReplyDeleteAEGIS and Standard / ESSM are absolutely great, I have no doubt, but ref: "A T45 can't go into a high threat environment today because neither it's missiles nor radar aren't proven or even operational. Every AEGIS equipped ship at sea in the world today can."
Please provide evidence of any AEGIS ship ever having shot down a sea skimming missile - for real, not a test ???
I am not saying T45 has either, we know it hasn't, but other than Iranian airliners, and Satellites, when has AEGIS/Standard been "combat proven" ?
Michael, in terms of "readiness" you might be surprised to learn that the Royal Australian Navy currently has 5 frigates, 3 submarines and an underway replenishment ship at sea, undertaking an warfighting exercise right now even as I type this. It is called Exercise Triton Sea and details are available on the net if you wish.
ReplyDeleteAnother frigate is on permanent deployment in the MEA and we have 2 frigates deployed constantly to assist our Border Protection Command. At least 12 of our 23 major fleet units are at sea on operations or exercises right now. Others are either in refit, being paid off (HMAS Manoora) or are at varying levels of readiness depending on RAN operational requirements, exactly the same as any other modern Navy does.
Does this little facts seem sufficient to address your question on RAN's "readiness"?
Don't mistake a few headlines about some poor maintainance aspects on 2 out of our 3 major amphibious ships, which were due to be paid off in 2012/13 respectively anyway, delude you into thinking that this is somehow reflective of RAN service wide. It demonstrably isn't.
Jed, I'm not aware of a successful intercept of a sea skimming anti-ship missile under operational circumstances. Are we to assume then, that every navy ship in the world is under extreme danger?
AEGIS has proven itself repeatedly. Far more so than any other major naval combat system in fact. That's all the chest thumping I need...