An in-depth look at the Type 26 frigate design
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Type 26 frigates being built for the Royal Navy are specialist submarine hunters but with a range of other capabilities. This video provides a primer on the overall warship design, its weapons, sensors and decoys.
Chapters
Introduction 00:00
Propulsion System 01:40
The platform 04:00
Flexible Mission Bay 05:33
Weapons 07:19
Sensors and Combat Management System 10:12
Decoys 12:17
Thanks to World of Warships for sponsoring this video
wo.ws/NavyLookOut
Footage: Navylookout, BAE Systems, Royal Navy and US Navy
Based on our article published here: www.navylookout.com/a-guide-t...
#type26frigate #frigate #warships #royalnavy #marineengineering #engineering #navalwarfare
Thanks to World of Warships for sponsoring this video
wo.ws/NavyLookOut
Wow everyone must admit this is a gorgeous ship
Of course it is mate, so be proud of it as we're proud of our FREMMs.
The most powerful military in Europe just keeps getting more impressive!
@@Andrew-is7rs lol not really what everyone is saying at the moment... That said Type 26 will certainly be a great ship
❤@@sergiodario58able
I worked on the maintenance systems for this ship for 2 years in build and I think she will be a good one.
Well done matey.
Thanks for your work mate :)
As someone who currently has the honour of being part of the type 26 project. It is truly a remarkable vessel
Really maybe it can join the cue of broken faults like POW now a heap of flooded metal the useless youth of today couldnt build lego indeed.
@@thecurlew7403 says the person that can't even string a sentence together. :)
@@dimwitsixtytwelve They couldnt build nothing what would you know anyhow.
@@thecurlew7403 Well for a start I wouldn't jump to conclusions and assume it's the 'youth' that designed and built that ship. Are you seriously suggesting that it was a bunch of kids that designed, built and managed the whole project?
@@dimwitsixtytwelve Younger generation that think they know but dont because ships n the past never gave the trouble as to day .
Type 26 type 45 and astute class. That's one formidable combination 👍
Plus with the queen liz class carriers loaded with f35s we finally starting to make our navy great again
@@tommallory4841Thats presuming we actually make more than one type 26 which considering what the MoD is like thats a 50/50 chance.
@@mrbritannia3833 100%
@@RussianFans-vn6cj And mine to report you for spamming! :)
@@mrbritannia3833 considering there is 1 built and in the water with 2 in building process with more soon to have steel cut. Very likely they will all be built
Very Good Ship Brief. Looks like I'm out of a job. 🙂
never!
Definitely not!
Hope the integration engineering being done during this long development and build process means it’ll be well integrated and tested upon launch and won’t have the issues of the Type 45.
BAE Systems should have learned the lessons by now but then again it is BAE Systems !
I have wanted to ask this for a while, but resisted the urge, because I know it could be perceived negatively and we have enough of that in the world, but now seems a good time.
How was it possible for the entire class of Type 45s to be launched with such a major engine defect? After HMS Daring was launched did the issues not show up until after Duncan hit the water?
I am genuinely curious, not attempting to troll something that has confused me for some time, happy new year to everyone.
@@Irisishunter parliament didn’t want to pay the upfront engineering and full mock-up testing and development and the ship power systems didn’t have the generous overhead to overcome degradation in performance.
@@1421davidm BAE are considerably better than many others. General Dynamics UK springs to mind and the AJAX debacle.
What were some of the issues with the type 45 mate?
Going to be one of the best in the fleet.
Similar to website articles, well structured, informative and interesting. More please!
Canada ordered 15.
An excellent presentation. Thank you.
Joined Royal Navy in 98 and served 9 years
Best time of my life , why did I bloody leave I don’t know , if your young and In dead end job, join the Royal Navy
Alright shippers,hope you are well mate 😄
@@paulc0773r hello mate how’s you shipmate
I hope you don't mind me asking but my 16 year old son is wanting to do engineering, would he be better going to college or joining the Navy to do the course?
Thanks
Very nice vid. Thx. Keep up the good work 👍
I love the frigate it's just I wish the UK bought more, it looks to good to be true.
Agreed but announcements made about T31 since your post have made me slightly less disappointed about the T26 numbers.
I would still like more T26 but at least T31 does seem to be evolving closer to what could be called a credible frigate now that it has been announced that it will be getting a Mk31 silo with many people claiming that will be 32 x Mk31 although I'm not sure that 32 number has been confirmed.
Even if the Mk41 silo is a replacement for the initially planned Sea Ceptor silos rather than being in addition to it a single 32 x Mk41 silo could still host for instance 64 x quad-packed Sea Ceptor in half of the silo with 16 x Mk41 still left over for heavier stuff. That on its own is a respectable load-out and if T31 also gets NSM cross-decked from retired T23s then even better.
This sort of T31 spec plus the T26 plus the Sea Ceptor upgrade for T45 does, in my opinion, deliver a pretty capable frigate/destroyer fleet especially if the T31/T32 (whatever T32 will be) gets built up to the rumoured 10 vessels.
@@julianfp1952 👍
Canada has gone with the Type 26 also 🇨🇦
Very informative video
Wow.
What a ship.
Safe seas for all her crew.
The royal navy is back!
I’m working on the platform management system as a project manager right now, big ship
These warships will be, without doubt, the world's best anti submarine ships, one reason both Australia and Canada are buying versions of them, but at present the Royal Navy is only getting eight of them that is, at best, half the number Britain needs
Australia can't what for the type 26 and the Astute class subs.thanks UK.🏴☠️🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸
@@georgepantazis141 The Hunters are entirely different beast and beast is the word. It will have the AAW capability to an Arleigh Burkes latest flight series and superior to the Constellation Class.
The reason both Australia and Canada are buying versions of them is because they are as well HMS ships, linked to the crown and our country. It has nothing to do with being good
@@LeonAust it is not hard to have the AAW capabilities of an Arleigh Burke, those are outdated 30 plus year old ships. As for the type 26 being better than the constellation, I wish so, but remember the type 26 and constellation are mostly ASW frigates and they’ll both use the same French sonar
@@brunol-p_g8800
7:25
Exactly what I needed before buying my first frigate 🤌🏻
The hounds of the sea. Multi purpose systems are the future. Not just dual purpose. It's becoming obvious in Ukraine that systems that can do several different things are gold. They are the new meta as it were. Thanks for the upload.
As a Yank - I’d say The RN has selected a winner!
The best thing about the Royal Navy is that we are updating our ships. To be in the Top 5 blue water Navy's in the world. You definitely need to keep updating your ship's. Hopefully there's more to come. And there's plenty of places around the UK where these ships and New destroyers can be built and skilled jobs which Britain has plenty around Britain.
The Canadian version went with Point defence Sea Ceptor , would have liked both options . Of course I am hoping I am still around by the time Canada even see's this Frigates in service.
Same with Australia. They have seriously delayed the first ship to be built to 2033.
Although theirs not knowing what the varent armament they will give the hunter class (type 26) they will go with till sometime 2024.
BAE Australia ship builders have given Australia 3 varent armament class.
1. 32. Cell MK41 VLS with multimission bay with full ASW capability, including toward away sonar system.
2. 96 cell MK41 VLS no multimission bay and some ASW equipment removed Although can still be equipped with topedo sized drones that can be stored inside the helicopter bay without taken up room for the helicopter for ASW detection. Also, change to some of the electric power and engine and fuel tank upgrade
3. 128 cell MK41 VLS changes include the same as the varent 2 but no front 5 inch gun.
Australia chose missile ESSM evolved sea sparrow as main armament to protect the ship.. strike missiles such as SM2 SM6 NSM and tomahawks. Future add ons. Hypersonic stand of missile. Including Asrock ant submarine missile. And LSRAM missile. And Nukla decoy systems. SM3 maybe another option
Guns. 2x 30mm guns. 2x phalanx close in weapon system guns. And (5-inch main gun. 136 cal)
6 Torpedo tubes. 4x4 NSM anti ship missile tubes. Aegis combat systems. SAAB interface computers CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray radar system.
The general purpose of the hunter class is ASW but will be used for multi-purpose use. So it may be used for the same role as the destroyers. For air and land attack also.
So be interesting what Australia government will decide on varent of armament.
I think they will go with option 2. Armament. And build additional heavily armed corvettes to make up the ASW fleet
So basically, Australia type 26 hunter class will be destroyers. I think they should change the name to attack class
I think it'll carry a few Tomahawk mk'V. Best type 26 video yet and I've seen them all.
Hopefully, a missile with over 1000 mile/1600km range that is maneuverable and can hit maritime targets would be great.
I don’t think it’ll be tomahawk as uk and France are developing new missiles for anti ship and land attack
@@TheDrummingWarrior A possibility if new missile is not ready. Tomahawks can be launched from the Mk. 41 VLS system the Type 26 frigates will employed and are currently used on UK attack subs. Would be a viable option and frigates with 1000+ mile SSM's (with 1000 lb. warheads & possible 3rd. party guidance from onboard helicopter) would make them very potent platforms. Seems the UK is upgrading all their existing stocks of the missile to the Block V standard giving them an new anti-ship capability so integration with Type 26 a logical one & could be a short-term solution. One negative is the relatively slow missile speed (around 600 mph) and why push for a newer / faster missile as you mentioned.
The Canadian version will carry Tomahawks.
@@NesconProductions Aussie Hunters will have Tomahawks V and maybe LRASMs we need better range than the NSM Mk II
Realy I like this powerful frigates
The mighty Montrose there
I like this powerful frigate
Royal Navy once again showing everyone how it's done
Don't mate, you just going to invite countries with very high defence budgets to dis us once again, but i do love this vessel and the type 31, 83 if they are made in realistic numbers
@@maslasoren Quality over quantity.
Looking forward to the 15 frigates Canada has ordered to enter service, with AEGIS and the SPY-7 radar
Impressive design. I am looking forward to seeing how the T26 stacks up against the new US Constellation Class Frigates. The Type 26 looks to set a high bar for frigate capability.
Who gives a shit about comparisons. Yanks have all the gear but no fking idea.
For us American types, the 127mm gun is a 5-inch gun.
Yes, and the new US frigate will have a gun less than three inches. I don’t understand why the US Znavy will use such a puny gun.
@@GH-oi2jfBecause we no longer use main guns for shore bombardment
And how unbelievable good are these new ships
@@RussianFans-vn6cj for a start this is a warship , and all gods not just your one are fake , how can half the planet still believe in fake gods it’s beyond me
@@RussianFans-vn6cj I respect everyone who believes in what they want to believe in but I have my opinion.
Peace brother stay safe
Wow didnt know there was T26's, i knew about the T45's as we get them in
When will this ship be available as an rc model kit?
Nice Frigate. The USN should have had this company bid on its latest Frigate project.
Well said. Sadly in 2017 the US Government knew exactly where the T26 programme was at the time and so deliberately set the requirement for ships already in the water thus excluding the latest technology and ship design. Buying British was a NoNo. And then to top that off they chose a 20 year old French / Italian design by FREMM.
@@1chish holy crap
@@protonneutron9046 It certainly is mate!
@@1chish The fremms are far from being a "20 year old design",i can't speak for the french version but the italian ones have been constantly upgraded with the latest tech and the last two will feature fixed radar arrays.
Plus the USN didn't want any new tech,they wanted a proven design that can be refitted with proven us tech like their aegis platform,the point of the constellation is to mass produce hulls against china's type 54.
@@ThisTheAviator I am aware designs get upgraded but the FREMM was designed in the early 2000s.
I think my point was that no matter how good a design was 20 years ago the latest designs will be better.
Canada will have 15 of these new frigates
Uk should build 12.
Now that all the construction kinks are worked out and the
Price per uni has dropped to £850 per unit.
Build another 5 units.
So when the frigate is operating off the generators how much silence can that buy you? You still need the engines to power the ship.
Keep up the great work UK. Im not the biggest frigate fan do to lack of VLS, but great work. Really want to see the type 83 destroyer. Hopefully though the US new B21, type 26, etc and all the newer equipment deters Russia from trying anything further seeing how bad their military technology is.
Keep up the good work too video poster, you have been at this for a long time and deserve more viewers
It's lack of VLS ..eh
It has got VLS .
@@loyalist5736 I think he means the relatively low number of cells compared to those of destroyers and cruisers.
Given that a ships usefulness in combat these days, is measured by it's ability to launch numerous vertical missiles against a saturation attack. The inability to reload those cells at sea, means a flotilla leaves port with a finite number of missiles of all types. Needless to say, the loss of a single vessels with so many VLS cells, would be a terrible blow to the ability of a carrier group to defend itself.
The ideal solution would be double or triple the number of Type 26 or similarly equipped frigates. Permitting six or even eight frigate escorts per carrier group. With others available in reserve to relieve those on station. Also the CSG would be accompanied by three, four or more destroyers and a couple of fleet nuclear submarines. Further increasing the number of defensive and offensive missiles available.
Thinking out of the box, there is the often talked about arsenal ship concept to consider. Where a manned or unmanned simple vessels packed with hundreds of VLS cells. Follows the carriers everywhere! With its vast missile compliment fully integrated into the fleet layered defence system and controlled by other vessels. (See arsenal ship nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/arsenal-ships-us-navy%E2%80%99s-missile-packing-blast-past-124781)
It has VlS
@@gusgone4527 Thank you for having common sense.
@@ThatCarGuy Sometimes even common sense fails to get through. Oh well.
I feel that the RN should have procured at least 16 Type 26s given the increasing Submarine threat in the North Sea and particularly around the GUKIC Gap. Instead of wasting more and more money on separate procurement programs to produce small numbers of woefully underarmed vessels like Type 31 and future Type 32 frigates, the MOD and the Treasury should have just accepted that the RNs long standing ASW mission is one of the most critical to UK’s maritime security, and so prioritised as much funding as was required for not compromising the RN’s ability to conduct ASW operations. I feel that other than maintaining the UK’s CASD, Anti-Submarine Warfare should be of second most importance, rather than trying to perform a compromised Carrier Strike capability in which we are still unable to operate a fully sovereign capable air group for the foreseeable future.
What is the object depicted at the 43 second mark?
An active sonar transducer - part of the towed array sonar system
@@NavyLookout Got it, thank you. 👍
Dayum dis ship like pow pow bang bang in dem seas tho y’all feel me fam??? It got all dem tings in da face a dat enemies fo sho sho no cap my gs 💥💥💥🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:50 🚢 Type 26 has two main propulsion modes: gas turbine for high speeds and diesel electric for quiet cruising.
04:06 📏 Type 26 is a large frigate, similar in size to the Type 45 Destroyer, with an emphasis on aesthetics and clean lines.
05:31 🏢 The flexible Mission Bay is a key feature, allowing for various equipment and containers to be carried and deployed.
07:32 🚀 Type 26 is equipped with modern weapon systems, including the Mark 45 gun and Mark 41 VLS, with potential for future missile types.
09:24 🌐 Air defense capabilities include the Sea Ceptor VLS modules, and the ship features 48 missiles for self-defense.
11:57 🔐 Electronic warfare capabilities and communication systems are part of Type 26's modern equipment.
Made with HARPA AI
simple math here, detecting mach 3 targets at 22km max distance gives less than 22 secs of flight time inbound from max distance for the human interaction to act. That is detection, establishing an actual real target and accurate course/position + relative to ship, intent, and get the proper orders/permissions for action against. If the ship and ship's company are already at GQ and 'Battle stations manned' posture, maybe this is a plausible doable defense as it would give CIC around 8 secs or less to turn CIWS to auto and get guns on target, but this would most likely eliminate any other defensive options as I doubt there is enough time to activate chaff or flare systems and get CIWZ in its proper settings + locked into the target. As a perimeter sentry, this would be a major deficiency in future tech naval combat area tech dependencies.
Agreed. I have to assume the strategy is to detect/engage threats before they themselves engage, which seems a dicey proposition at best. I don't like the chances of any surface combatant these days.
@@hdmccart6735 I think the strategy for these frigates is to be targets and to be token disposable frames. Even their speed suggests they are to make a presence without intent on fulfilling the threat such a presence was supposed to mean. They should be good for border interdiction missions, and anti-pirate missions, but otherwise they are not much greater than a mobile sensor buoy. Fleet on Fleet action they don't seem to add capability. But when a bean counter wishes to state how many frames they have, they will be able to tout a few extra.
The US FFG62 is completely different. It isn't bound to mission by keel build like the British frigate, as it is configurable to do any task at just a reload away, and is built to basically provide the same capabilities as a DDG but with just fewer rounds to do the tasks. It pretty much carries the same sensors and combat systems as the Spurance class. The US went with a Frigate it can put on escort duty or interchange it within the Carrier Battle Group as extensions to its sensor layout and ranges. I don't get why the British, who could have nearly everything the US Navy could, would choose to go the route of such a less capable and less flexible option.
As to your survivability point, I watched a frigate I was stationed to back in the 90s get absolutely pounded by weapon systems that were thought of being the death of ships like it. The new littoral ships notwithstanding, the rest of the fleet I think is much more survivable than given credit. The changes made to the new frigate from its Italian cousin suggest the US learned its lesson and they have returned to making a ship with a chin, without all that bulk that the Russian ships use to get their reputations.
@@robertevans2450 Yea that doesn't really matter the only time she is going to be attacked is on a war setting where she will be at battle stations at all times, with CWIS prob already on auto aster 15 can also quite easily engage those targets, and more likely than not she will have a type 45 with her capable of tracking over 1000 targets the size of a cricket ball at 400Km and engaging them out to 120Km it is also announced it will be getting Anti Ballistic missile capabilities in the Aster 30 Block 1.
The type 26 doesn't need more anti air what she needs is more dedicated Anti sub weapons, if that's dedicated torp launchers or maybe something similar to ASROC.
In a high threat environment I believe they would be travelling with Type 45s. If they are alone though then you aren't wrong. Not a fun situation to be in
@@regarded9702 I firmly believe these are tokens. Their total build layout just says sponge. Low-range air sensors, bell sonar, slow, with long-range econo benefit.
I was originally disturbed to see the US buying a non-US Frigate until the specs started getting released. The US Frigate is basically a mini Destroyer. This should have been the way the British went as well. Side by Side comparison just shows how the British are getting hosed as you see them paying almost $0.5B more per unit, and that is only compared to the US's 3-unit purchase, as the per unit cost will drop below $1B/unit when they approve the next 7 to round out the 10 unit reserve already allotted for. The plan is to buy 15-25 units which will drive the costs per unit down even more.
For me,type 26 is my choice in multi mission surface combatant.hope philippines can provide the budget.
try India's Nilgiri Class. Much superior Long range AESA radar and BrahMos- something that Philippines desperately wants. At the same cost.
@Rohit B T26 are a lot better at ASW work. Nilgiri-class are noisy.
Are toroidal propellors being used???
If not, why not/?
Great video, but I do think that both aircraft carries need extra weapons systems. 3x cwis is not a lot of protection. And before anyone says that she doesn't sail alone, she has destroyers to protect her, but in theory, ammo is not unlimited and all it takes is ONE stray missile to hit the right area and bye bye.
That would be a good point if ciws was much use against modern threats. But it’s not.
…Ciws is still carried because it’s useful about 3rd world threats like speedboats. But modern low level missiles zip through its engagement range in a couple of seconds. The chances of stopping one are low and stopping a realistic salvo is impossible. And ciws can’t even engage top tier threats like manoeuvring ballistic missiles.
Because it's not just the missiles and the VLS cells, it's the radars and combat management systems too.
Type 45 already has these (and better ones than any additions to the carriers would ever have) so makes sense to add any extra missiles to the destroyers that are better suited to carrying them because for the added cost of duplicating the fire control systems on the carrier, you'd have to sacrifice some amount of the missiles, meaning you have fewer missiles overall, so more likely to be overwhelmed in the first place.
Plus there are other small things, like if you actually had to fire a missile from the carrier, you'd have to pause all flight operations and do a FOD walk to make sure there isn't any debris from the launch on the deck before you could launch or recover any aircraft or risk losing an aircraft.
I'd much rather have EW systems like AN/SLQ-32 the USN has on all their ships to defeat incoming missiles, but they're much less flashy than missiles, so don't get the recognition they should.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 The slq32 is of, to say the least, dubious effectiveness. It’s another old system that won’t do much against modern threats. Even the usn implicitly admits this in their concerns about taking ships anywhere near China in a war.
The truth is that there really isn’t a way of protecting ships effectively against high end missiles, especially when they can be land launched, meaning salvo sizes can be unlimited. If you have a system that has a ninety % chance of stopping each missile and can’t be overloaded by any number of missiles, then basic maths still says that there is a 50% chance one of the missiles will hit. Even ballistic missiles are cheap compared to warships, so this a losing game.
Yes, Sea Ceptor is compact enough to have several systems onboard.
What a (ravishing) piece of art ! Reviewing my knowledge about marine telecommunications being within the low frequencies due to the attenuation of water , with VHF & UHF telecommunication even if onshore , as well as the laser systems and the sensors, it seems that my information dates back to the stone ages , and that the frigate and the whole Royal Navy is well equipped with sophisticated gear to deal with different thugs including China , Russia, N.K. and Iran . Salute to GB.
That's one fine ship, but I thought the best part was the aluminum fishing boat on the deck!! 🤓
Wow ito qng dapat mabili Ng Philippines 2units lang pueDe na maging prime type 26 destroyer or frigates segurado ayos na pandagdag force sea boundary
The robot reading this script is agonizing. Otherwise, looks like a beautiful ship.
Royal Navy needs four for T26s so we have cover when the T45 destroyers are phased out for the new Destroyer.
We are getting 8 of the T26s they will be in service 2027 to 2028, T83 destroyers will be out in late 2030s, the T31 frigates will be out before the T83 destroyers and maybe the T32 frigates too
Is this a blue water vessel?
I do not know a lot about warships and their design, but that fibreglass dome on the bows, how would that fare in very rough seas?
Patient: Doctor, my dome hurts when I slam it. What should I do? Doctor: Stop doing that. Anyway, fibreglass domes are stronger than rubber, which is one of the other main options.
The underwater sonar dome? It's flooded, it's merely streamlining over the sonar system to improve slipperiness through the water meaning a lot less drag and higher speeds for the same power.
Since it's full of water, any pressure from the outside just meets the pressure from the inside, and since water is incompressible there's no movement in the dome.
Fiberglass is nothing new to ship hulls. Tried and tested. Unless you plan on hitting something, it shouldn't be a problem.
@@lordtemplar9274I thought they use solid steel over the entire ship
Too bad it came too late for the US Navy FFG competition. This is an awesome ship. AN-SPY 6 radar would have been ideal, though.
Sorry that is a myth. The type 26 had already been cutting steel in 2017, the same year the US announced the winner of the FFG(x) . This means the Type 26 could have been in the program.
@@thomasb5600 The US Navy's timetable for the FFG(X) effectively required any parent design to be _in service_ by 2019 at the latest.
@@JonMartinYXD interesting as we there was some design where plan only in 2017.
Canada's version of the Type 26 will have the AN/SPY-7(V)1 radar. Except for reasons I don't know our government has given it the name AN/SPY-7(V)3.
@@thomasb5600 No. The six parent designs considered and their first-in-class commission dates were:
Álvaro de Bazán class (Spain) - 2002
Freedom class (US) - 2008
FREMM (Aquitaine/Bergamini class) (France/Italy) - 2012/2013
Independence class (US) - 2010
Legend class (US) - 2008
MEKO 200 (many classes) (Germany) - 1987-2006
Is this the design Australia and Canada are buying?
Yes with slight modifications for each country
@@gryph01 I would argue both Canada and Australia's variants are more than "slight" modifications.
Yes it is
I am baffled in in the fact the didn't use this hull for a T45 replacement considering how well designed it is and it would save cost of development, I have seen the type 83 and it seems rather other the top in proportions. another thing, if some slight re-enforcing of the MMB was could Some VLS tubes be added above it.
Does it have a reverse gear camera? Asking for a Navy.
Not navy, from you query you appear to be navvy 😊
@@musa7010 😂
Pues en Australia no están muy contentos con este Destructor el proyecto está en los cajones por un sinfín de problemas tanto es así que han pedido a Navantia que les hagamos tres buques
No es exacto, Navantia envió al gobierno australiano una oferta sin que se la pidieran para tratar de conseguir trabajo en astilleros fuera de Australia. Los barcos anteriores del mismo diseño que Navantia construyó para Australia eran demasiado caros y se retrasaban en la entrega.
@@AndrewinAus Due to Chinese threats the Aussies want them ASAP and the Spanish took advantage of the situation, don't blame them as it wasnt to replace the Hunters just to add a ship with similar attributes to the Hobarts that our ship yards built..
The Hunters problems are being rectified and will be awesome ships when delivered, delivery dates stay the same or slightly to the right.
I'm afraid we will upgrade the ANZACs and await the Hunters. Would have loved to see 3 spanish frigates added ASAP to the RAN.
Now vuild the 60 ships you need plus the at sea replenishment ships, oilers, and supply tenders needed.
And thanks to these blogs all our enemies know about it and our subs, missiles, Tempest project, Tanks, I remember when the defence department kept everything secret.
LMAO, this type of info is known by the enemy LONG before any blog talks about.
Cheer up there will be plenty of unpleasant surprises for the Russians or Chinese if they ever come up against them in a shooting war.
Why has Canada ordered twice as many as us?
👍👍
Interesting content marred by the voiceover
And it’s not a ship…. It’s a Warship
Could have been worse, it could have been a "boat" lol.
@@johnallen7807 hahaha yes that would not do!
@@tusker4954 Unless it was a submarine of course!!😇
Hopefully there more reliable then the type 45s first were
05:03 We see a Norwegian flag?! ;)
Why, during the design phase did they not fit engines to make 40knots as modern submarines can make 30+ knots
If subs go 30 they're much more detectable
I'm sure I heard this exact narration on another video
same displacement as a county class DLG
Is Glasgow still safe considering the recent cable cutting sabotage . Mok me not it's something to think about . Their are other yards Rosyth springs to mind . If this is to do with independence pull the remaining 5 to Ireland . Political decision required . Probable outcome M.O.D. will stick but Managers will know they are on unofficial notice . Their are other yards looking for regeneration.
Antiship missiles?? Ill bet it will be NSM (naval strike missiles)
Need another four to five vessels
Sinkin’ Chinkin’
Looks impressive but I bet there will not be nearly enough of them.
32 units on order.
8 RN
9 RAN
15 RCN
Enough of them for what? There really isn’t a submarine threat against the UK.
@@advanceaustralia3321 Canada is building 15, I bet that gets cut back by a future government.
@@briananthony4044
Unlikely.
It’s possible New Zealand may buy two Type 26 to replace their two ANZAC frigates. Or they may go cheaper with Type 31.
@@advanceaustralia3321 Embarrassing! I hope you and the Canadians can lend us a few the next time Putin or Xi kick off! lol.
Hope the ship doesn't flood or bust it's propeller shaft or have a propulsion system that fails in warm regions.
Or have a anti ship crane dropped on it or someone smoking on deck multiple times or need a tug following the smoke trail when at sea. Still the tug crew must have their feet up as the Kuznetsov has not been to sea for years.
@@anthonywilson4873 ikr - it's almost reached RN levels of efficiency and readiness!
What a shame we won’t have more than a handful of them. Canada has ordered more of them. Shows the sorry state of the Royal Navy at the moment. Too much focus on few, highly specialised platforms, forgetting that sometimes, you need just need more platforms out there.
Finally 😢
It’s a crew that makes a ship
BAE built the type 45 destroyers look how that ended
Government chose the engines, not BAE.
Easy to blame contractors for Governmental failings.
Government expected too much from too small a platform due to budget constraints.
Do abit of research BAE have had years & millions of tax payers money to correct the propulsion system
@@darktruths133 I know more than you about Type 45 PIP.
BAE is being paid to fix them because BAE built them to the Government Spec, the Government chose a spec that wouldn't work because the Government was cost cutting like morons. It's not BAE's fault.
Shut up.
@@darktruths133 At the time the UK Govt/MOD had two choices - choose the tried and tested LM2500 Gas Turbines from the USA ( as used in the Horizon/Orrizonte without issues - cousins of the T45 ),or go with the new Northrop Grunman/RR WR21 set up,they chose the latter,and the rest as they say is history.
Hope the electrical propulsion systems are better that the T45s. Their had four times the limit of NATO for harmonic voltage distortion and common mode voltage in kV around the hull.
Al Hamduh Lillah !
I'm sure the Type 26 will be an outstanding addition to the Royal Navy...but...as a very wise man once said "There are two types of naval vessels, Submarines and targets".
And then there's ASW frigates catching the subs by surprise.
@@admiralmallard7500 ASW Frigates never catch submarines by surprise...in fact the ratio of ASW Frigates to Submarine to effect a kill is greater than 3 to 1.
@brianfoley4328 They're still a required asset for escorting Capital ships, can't escort a carrier over long range with a Sub
@@JimCarner We have to travel the globe, that requires large ships. You cannot move a brigade of tanks or thousands of troops solely by air. And you cannot Deploy aircraft to the other side of the world on short notice, especially if there is no friendly air base.
Fantasy land. Subs will hear it long before
Needs it's own torpedo tubes
And depth charges. I'm seriously disappointed in how little they are armed
No one uses depth charges anymore. And if you're using torpedoes. You've already been shot at.
These are some of the best armed Western frigates coming out rn, not including torpedo was a conscious choice rather than cost saving
@@JimCarner Removing the Torpedos was a conscious decision, not a budget saving measure. The Navy have tons of experience with ASW, they know what theyre doing.
@JimCarner You seem to think you know what the navy wants better than they do.
Also, there is a torpedo decoy system, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTD
@JimCarner China is building large surface combatants, we cannot sail across the world in corvettes.
Also, if a sub is in torpedo range you're already dead. The point is to get them before they are
Just need 12 at least to replace duke class,,,be great if more vertical launch systems were installed and not all put forward maybe had a missile cell amidship…
What is the Royal Navy's aversion to ASROC systems on their anti-Submarine vessels?? It's less than half the price of a harpoon per unit for a capability the russians and americans have had since the 1960's...
Royal navy doesn't have harpoons either
Nice to see the video, but doesn’t it sort of give operational secrets away?
Well presumably anyone it’d matter to already knew a year or more ago.
Not necessarily as they didn't reveal all its secrets or features
Using artisan throws away any energy weapon tracking capability for defence against hypersonic weapons.
yep
To be in command of such a ship!!!!
Cheers to day dreaming ??
I do find the placement of the phalanx odd, it seems to have a very limited sideways firing arc.
Placement of Weapon Systems will inevatibly involve some compromises - where would you put them ?.
@@paultanton4307 comprises definitely have to be made, but just curious to the reason.
IMO being defenseless (or depend on other ships) from weapons coming from the front or back seems dangerous too me. Even the decoys are only sideways.
Possible placements: one on the stern (or above the bridge), one aft (above the hangar), preferably alternating port and starboard;
Or further aft so they are (a little) higher;
Or more outwards;
@@BotherNone Beats the US that often has just one CIWS on it's warships. Even the AB is often missing the fwd CIWS
@@BotherNone A lot of Navies place a CIWS on top of the Hangar - the RN doesn't,if you Have your precious ASW Helicopter on the Flight Deck it could suffer damage from the sabot debris of the 20mm Phalanx rounds.The GoalKeeper position on the Type 22 B3 was not optimal but like i said it has to be a compromise.
I still don't get why they're going with the individual launchers for Sea Ceptor over quadpacking into fewer, larger standard cells to reduce size and weight & increase compatibility and interoperability.
Price
Aussies added extra VLS cells forward and a real AAW fit out
love the robot voice -_-
The type looks very familliar...
@@RussianFans-vn6cj Odin sees it differently!
It's just a shame that they didn't make the ship 20 ft longer and fit 64 mk-41 VLS cells in it
Its an asw frigate without a long range search radar, meaning sea ceptor, fc/asw and posibly an asroc is all it will be equipped with and its hull is specifically designed to be acoustically quiet at great cost, making it a aaw frigate would be an expensive waste, and its also too small to be used as a base for the type 83 as you probably want more vls cells than 64. The better option to supplement the the type 45 is actually the type 31, just build it to Iver Huifeldt specs- 16 nsm or cannister lanched fc/asw, 32 aster 30, 24 sea ceptor, sampson and s1850 or artisan
@@lukeallison3713 It's more than just an anti-submarine frigate. It carries multiple strike length VLS tubes for tomahawk missiles. And if it's operating as part of a task group, it's going to be working with destroyers at an aircraft carrier, so it would make sense to have longer arrange missiles as well. A dozen CAMM-ER to supplement the shorter range version makes sense.
Canada and Australia certainly need more vertical launch tubes as their versions will be much more than anti-submarine frigates. The Canadian surface combatant will be the only large surface combatant in the Canadian fleet. The Australian version will have l band and s band radars as well as sborter-ranged X-Band radars
@@ronmaximilian6953 Unfortunately, though it is definitely a little bit undergunned for its role (more multi purpose than type 26), the aussie variant is currently having significant weight problems linked with using ceafar and other indigenous tech integrated to aegis , while the canadian more with spy-7 LRDR is not having the same problems. The best answer for the aussie variant is probably some amidships mk 56 launchers for essm, 12x2 essm would free up the 32 cell mk 41 for 24 sm, 8 asroc as an example or tomahawks if needed. The canadian vessel is definitely in more of a predicament. It needs to improve significantly in both aaw and asw performance from its predesescors (tribal II aaw with 29 mk 41, all for sm2 Halifax asw. I think 48 mk 41 cells is a good number, 32 sm, 8 asroc, 8 tomahawk and 12x2 essm in mk 56 (current plan is 24 sea ceptor, essm in mk 41 which will mean not enough or no sm). The british variant could also do with a modest upgunning, the 48 'mushroom farms' can all take camm-er anyway but the ship as it is can't really fully utilise anything with more range with that. 32 cells and a commitment to an asroc type weapon would be nice, note tomahawk has not been announced and will not be needed as fc/asw is designed for that role as well as anti shipping. 16 asroc,16 fc/asw would be great. Ultimately the design philosophy of the type 26 is 1-ASW, 2-Anti shipping and land attack, 3- AAW and so it is only expected to defend itself although sea ceptor is a great weapon both for that task and task group defence
Your website is great I have been reading for a long time. The video is also great but the auto voices are off-putting. In the long-term a real narrator would probably be much better.
Sir gibo ito na pwede nating bilhin 35 ships ka agad ASAP Po!!!
Compro a fragata toda por 40 bilhões manda para a base do rio de janeiro Niterói brasil marinha
This medium frigate has AEGIS sistem like american or not?
Pommy version no,aussie version yes
8 ordered we need double this.........
Yep ! Let's tell the world all our secrets :-(