Problem is paying for them ???? The UK lost more than £900 million in tax each year because of the hand gun ban in three parts of the UK ! this year I have lost £15,000.00 thanks to the Corona AIDS from China as I was laid off from my aircraft work I have closed my sawmill and burned more than £22,000.00 in kindling wood to waste thanks to the Gov and media telling people not to use wood anymore for cooking and heating. I have also lost £8,000.00 because I can still not rent or buy any land for free range hens for eggs. If taxes went UP to pay for more ships we have NO real use for as the UK gave up fighting the Taliban everybody body would be bitching about paying more tax !
I think we're building 15 of them here in Canada. But honestly with over 200,000km of coastline to patrol and protect, we could easily make use of another 15
The more I hear about defence spending the more I think we ought to spend on education and health - and I've been pro-defence spending for over 40 years. Still am, yet the last few years I think we've all witnessed the need to improve learning and health infrastructure.
@@rpm1796 Canada needs AUKUS subs. They should model their navy after the Australians. Canada, UK and Australia should build 1 type of vessel each and sell it to each other to balance the trade.
@@jjb4531 foreign aid is a huge asset to the UK and a big part of our soft power, and social welfare, well its running thin already we can't take money out of it
@@Karlm01 Well i was thinking that as they scrapped 22 Destroyers and replaced them with 8 new ones. Frigates are generally smaller and cheaper. So to make up the overall ship numbers required to police all the shipping lanes we are expected to cover. As far as i understand it debt is not really a massive problem. After Covid showed that money does grow on trees with the amount of embezzlement by non existent PPE suppliers led by MP's. In addition there is nothing stopping the government from issuing bonds that will mature in 10 years to be bought by speculators that have been promised a good return. Check Prof. Blyth of Brown University, for his take on national debts. Very interesting views and ideas. Lots of YT videos with him explaining stuff. 😊
It's a shame we couldn't stick to the original 13 as planned whilst still getting the Type 31 & 32 frigates. Also with Aus and Canada building more of these ships than we are i'm suprised that didn't lower the overall cost for us to build more.
The original plan had 5 of those 13 being general purpose rather than anti sub. It's a lot of ship for a GP frigate, I'd prefer a larger number of worse ships.
If they stuck to the original 13 then the current type 31 ships wouldn't have been conceived as they were designed to replace the 5 general purpose Type 26.
Costs can’t come down because the Canadians and Australians will be making them in their own yards. Costs will actually go up. It would be better if the UK built subs for Australia and Canada and buy type 26 and type 31 from them.
I agree in principle but lasers will never be practical on smaller ships like this. Nuclear carriers perhaps, but not this. Not without another 5-10 decades of development.
@@Knox-umbra development happens faster than you know you should look into U.S.'s strides . If Stryker vehicles can have lasers I see no reason why a large frigate/surface combatant can't add laser weapons in the near future
@@Knox-umbra we don't even need alot of time to prove technologies like lasers it is just that militaries take a while to implement them in service so I would say 5 or less years
They need to build 6-8 more of these to offset the Daring Class of dockyard divas (Costly rebuild and/or early retirement?). Perhaps a batch #2 version of Type 26 with increased AAW capabilities.
@@GGG19872 Not until the mid 2030's at the earliest. I am hoping for a larger hull than the T26 given the prevalence of air and surface launched anti-ship threats. Especially if it is also going to carry an ABM capability.
@@bobthebomb1596 they would probably make it bigger, and there’s enough space for missiles because the mission bay at the back wouldn’t really be needed so they could put a load there. I could be wrong though and they could make a completely different one
@@GGG19872 A modified Type 26 is certainly one of the hulls under consideration. Reducing the size of the flight deck and hanger is another option to create more space. A new, slightly larger hull design would be my preferred option, but I just want a ship that works and provides the best possible protection to our sailors.
I would say armed to a normal standard. It is the U.K. ships that are going to be under equipped, courtesy of a defence budget 3 times smaller than it was in 1990.
The Canadian ones are based on the Smaller Type 31 Also the Canadian Navy have not got any bigger ships like Destroyers with the big weapon's so need more punch
@@zenko247 the type 26 Canadian is twice the size of our last destroyers as such with 12 as a/s ships and 3 as a/a vessels the destoyers are being replaced
Just a small point for the future. The helicopter name Chinook is pronounced shi-nook. It has a dual meaning: a Native American tribe in the Pacific Northwest, and a warm, dry wind. That said, the frigate seems impressive. I hope the USN takes a good look at these and maybe considers ordering a few dozen.
The UK has already launched its first Type 26 Frigate, the HMS Glasgow. Australia's Hunter class variant of the Type 26 is a few months ahead of schedule and should arrive by late 2020s/early 2030s. Canada's CSC variant of the Type 26 is running a year behind schedule and should arrive by the early 2030s.
I don’t understand why people think they are doing stuff wrong and not using the correct kit. If it’s being used then it’s being used for a reason. It is there job to make it work and get the best design so I kinda trust them more the some random on a TH-cam video.
The Type 26 is supposed to form the basis of the Royal Canadian Navy's new frigate class, but like most of our programs I'm sure we'll end up overpaying by 2 to 3 times more for it.
That is to be expected. We are not just buying the ships. A larger part of that purchase is the technology transfer. We are learning how to build ships which gives us the capeability to build more and take care of ourselves in the future. Producing these ships and sustaining an industry will create generations of ship builders that can one day be asked to build our future ships and improve our capeability further. Yes it would have been cheeper to buy them from people who already would do a better job. However, that leaves us unable to replensih our losses in a war. It means we will always need to buy ships designed for someone else or some other purpose. We don't currently have the knowledge to design and produce world class ships. With our previous boom and bust strategy of buying on one order contracts we would loose all that knowledge as the people working on those ships retire or become unemployed. They move elsewhere or change jobs and the knowledge is lost and never built on.
@@jaysonkmendoza totalmente de acuerdo contigo, en España acabamos de gastar el triple en diseñar y construir nuestro propio submarino de lo que nos ubiera costado comprarlo fuera. Pero ahora tenemos un sub que es nuestro, no dependemos de otro país ni para sostenerlo ni en el futuro para reemplazarlo. Otra cosa es que un país pueda asumir ese coste. Por desgracia solo unos pocos países pueden diseñar y construir sus propios sistemas en todos los ámbitos, pero al menos tener cierta autonomía te posiciona mejor para negociar en el extranjero.
@@jaysonkmendoza Canada has been building her own ships for years. When Canada buys a warship or a fighter the basic lifetime cost is provided unlike the USN which just includes actual purchase or build price
@@alpearson9158 We have built our ships is a lot different than keeping a ship building industry. We generally build our ships in boom and bust cycles and the problem is what happens in the log period between orders. When an order winds down work drys up and most of the jobs are lost. Thus knowledge is lost as people retire or move elsewhere. Moreover ship building companies will restrain their capita investments since they cannot guarantee future business. Design doesn’t happen because without more models it’s not necessary and we don’t have experienced engineers to get it right since they couldn’t find employment here. Also companies that support such ships experience the same problem. In contrast this is why all countries that build ships have a policy to maintain a ship building industry through continual ordering and designing concurrently. It creates stability and encourages people to make a career out of it. Support companies pop up for their many systems and components and often start to innovative over time as they think they can do it better. Ship designers can also find constant work and since they can have a steady existence knowledge of past design errors can be passed down leading to continuous improvements in new builds and refits. This has value to a nation because it provides the capabilities to replace losses, and generally yields designs bette suited for the home navy. However some of the biggest advantages are indirect because those companies sell their services to other companies too for extra business and also often develop civilian variants with their know how fuelling innovation. Lastly costs are deceiving since where money is spent matters a lot for countries. 80bn at home can be better than 60bn spent mostly abroad because of how economics work. Money spent at home generates income and that income growth is exponential due to the velocity of economic activity created fuelling the tax system through sales and income taxes. Money abroad has little to now recovery involved.
Still think that they compromised on the number of VLS. They could have replaced the 24 CAMM mushroom launcher on the bow with another 24 VLS for a total of 48 VLS. Selecting Mk41 VLS also questionable because RN doesn't use any SAM from USA. They could have installed 48 Slyver VLS and since RN is a partner of FCASW with France that's a good choice. They should also install two 4 cannister of anti-ship missiles from I-SSGW. That's 48 VLS, 24 CAMM, and 8, anti-ship should have been the configuration for RN.
@@carisi2k11 Mk57 is only installed on the periphery of vessels. They should have 48 Mk41 VLS in the bow and a 6/8 - cell self-defense Mk41 or 24 Mk56 VLS with ESSM on top of the mission bay. Then, add 8 cannister of anti-ship missiles on top of that.
It's not built for area air defence, you'd need a big upgrade in radar as well, generally making it a different ship. So the ability to use Aster isn't useful. MK41 has wider use for choice in weaponry and compatibility, it will include FCASW.
It's not actually the mushrooms, that was a Type 23 thing since CAMM is longer than Sea Wolf and they were using the same canisters. These will be more usual hatched VLS modules. Would have preferred quadpacked ExLS but it is as it is. As for the Mk41, all accounts point to Tomahawk and LRASM capability, as well as potentially VL-A and maybe SM-6 or even -3.
@@ryanbrewis6990 I think it's basically the same launchers used from the Type 23 that will be refitted on the Type 26 to save money(I don't disagree with that idea because that's smart but they should only use it on top of mission bay and the ones on bow should have Mk41 or Slyver since it's more flexible). My reasoning is that RN is paying a lot money for this vessel and they should maximize the capability they can get on this vessel especially they don't really have that large of fleet unlike USN or China. It's unlikely for RN to buy SM-6 or SM-3 since they use their own CMS and I doubt they are likely to buy CEC for their vessels aside from their F-35B's. They will probably prefer Aster 30B1 NT than the SM-3 or SM-6 itself.
What a shame we’ll probably end up having no more than a handful of them. There comes a point when you just need more platforms, rather than a handful of very expensive ships that are only slightly more capable but equally susceptible to simple drone attacks. Royal Navy’s procurement and R&D is all over the place. The Type 83 will probably end up being so expensive we only get 2 of them.
And knowing New Zealand, we'll just probably not buy this type of ship, and fudge around for a few more years before making a panic buy on something that's not fit for purpose. Or what has been a lot of commercial grade building, when it should be military spec built ships instead.
Two blocks of 24 CAMM, one of Mk41. At 0:39 you can see the 4x6 modules just above the hangar and at 1:36 just before it cuts to the view of the 5"/62 you can see the forward VLS farm.
All that room lost on a mission bay for 4 boats, what they do need is more weapons, look at the Burkes and their VLS compared to our type 45's, more missiles, more varied loadout, we seem more concerned our ships humanitarian relief and goodwill tours..Really ships of this size should be bristling with weapons like the Chinese and Russian competition.
The powerplant situation is a lot better than the Type 45, the Type 26 has the same gas turbine as the two fitted in the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, so a nice healthy power generation excess for future system upgrades and additions.
HMS Richmond is the first Type 23 Frigate to have the PGMU Upgrade to it's propulsion systems,and while not exactly the same layout as what the Type 26 will be equipped with there are certainly common elements,and she completed CSG21 without issues.
@@anthonylittlewood810 Who wouldn't? Stop foreign aid, stop spending tens of billions (mininum) a year on immigration support schemes (especially illgeal) - this alone would very easily cover any bulking of the armed forces. There is plenty of vanity projects we could cut into that aren't needed, but the latter above we spend. Alot more on than many realise.
Still don't understand why they are fitting a 5" gun to a dedicated ASW platform. A smaller calibre multi-purpose gun would have been better and maybe allowed for an increase in VLS cells. No way will they risk one of those for gunfire support.
I agree. I think it would have been better to have a 5 inch on the type 31 as I'd rather they were used for gun fire support than the expensive type 26. But maybe that would have been too pricey for the type 31. I'd imagine they've gone through all the options, and (hopefully) picked the most suitable weapons for each platform
If they didn't have the 5 inch guns then the RN would in the future be left with only 6 ships capable of naval gunnery for shore support. Type 31 won't have a gun capable of that.
@@cardiffflyer When are the navy going to provide gunfire support that could not be handled by a 56mm or 75mm these days? We have two carriers for CAS duties and any ship close enough to be hit by medium artillery will likely be facing anti-ship missiles. If we absolutely must have NGS capability then buy a few GP versions or fit it to the Type 32 and don't risk what few ASW and air defence assets we have.
@@bobthebomb1596 considering the size of the navy all surface escorts should have to have the capability to provide NGS otherwise your limiting the capability to only a couple of ships who may not be available when needed. Surely it's better to have the capability of 5 inch naval guns and not need it than not to have the capability and need it one day.
32 VLS for the Hunter Class Frigates is not enough. For a destroyer size ship, we should rethink this seriously. They do look like magnificent ships.... but we nee more offensive power for the buck.
if I understand it correctly, doesn't the UK design have vls hatches on top of the mission bay? So that they can swap in the silos for war time? is that right, there seems to be a laod of vls towards behind the mast on the UK version. I think the problem with the Australian version is that the Radar is so dam heavy and power hungry.
The only major power we will be fighting the next half a century is China. Our army will be unable to go toe to toe with them with large division/Corp size formations like we could against the Soviets. (especially with many in society being too soft to join the armed forces so not enough recruits) Having a larger, more advanced & powerful fleet is our first line of defence. The Army will re reole the Royal Marines, paras and a new rangers Brigade into tier 2 spec forces better equipped and armed to fight essentially large scale guerilla attacks/strikes. The SAS, SBS & SFSG will be doing more advanced ops and more active than usual. The main bulk of our army will be essentially holding forces and a framework for building a much larger army in the event of all out war. The Royal airforce will likely have around 100 + Tempest 6th gen stealth fighters (if we build them) all with their own drone assets for beefing out output and recon abilities. Our military is tiny compared to the late 80's. Ideally we should increase our defence budget to around 3.5% of GDP to fill out the pre mentioned above.
We are no longer in sailing ships early days four or eight person to a room. Try each person own space stops spread of sickness and desease and sailors shall perform better
PFC A There are going to be 24 Mk41 VLS cells on board which can carry a lot of different missiles such as Tomahawk, Harpoon and hopefully the future ASM. However there should be room for ASM canisters as well but I’m not sure
@@archiecroft7114 It was announced fairly recantly that the Type 26 will be armed with the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW) from 2028. This will be launched from the Mk 41 silos if I am not mistaken.
@@AndyH2023. I think it will be basically because it isn't fixed yet, we have a Interim anti ship missile decision coming soon and a development project for the FC/ASW.
The opening scene shows the consules above the lower window line by quite a bit, thats a dead spot for observing. Should they be lower ! We need these ships now and a lot more off them. Selling old ships too Greece and upgrading ships are stop gaps. Supply chains, securing sea lanes and international maritime laws are more relevant then ever. This is a good start but is it enough and in time.
Deluded post Brexit thinking, the U.K. is a bit part player in 2021. The days of big navy are over. We can’t afford a bigger navy and we certainly can’t crew it. Young people don’t want to go to sea anymore.
They won't be a frigate in the sense of the 50s-70s. These ships are just a shade smaller than the Type 45s in length/width and tonnage. They're almost twice as big (and infinitely more versatile and powerful) as the Type 42 destroyers. They're essentially the same size as many WW2 era light cruisers.
@@TT-hd3zi I meant build hundreds of small, cheap corvette style guided missile ships that can overwhelm enemy due to low cost and high numbers. Please tell me what is the difference between the roles of corvette, cruiser, frigate, destroyer?
@@farzana6676 corvettes are far smaller vessels that won’t perform as well in higher sea states or far away from ports (lack of range). They are also not as survivable and can’t carry as many weapons. Frigates and destroyers will depend on what navy but for the Royal Navy frigates are anti-submarine and general-purpose vessels whereas destroyers are anti-air. Cruisers are meant to be vessels that can do everything and work alone far away from any friendly vessels but none are currently in service with the UK.
@@TT-hd3zi Right I did not think about range or sea states, I see that Russian naval philosophy seems to have a strong emphasis on guided missile corvettes. So in terms of the US navy, can you tell me why they would need all 3 types frigates, destroyers and cruisers? It seems the differences are basically size but they are all surface combat ships?
@@farzana6676 countries will shape their navies around their requirements. For the Soviet Union/Russia they generally operated/operate closer to their own waters and ports so smaller, heavily armed ships were appropriate. For the US Navy, the Arleigh-Burke class destroyers are the main part of the fleet and are multi-role warships. Ticonderoga class cruisers are slightly larger and their role is to serve as a command ship for a carrier battle group with what they call larger ‘flag facilities’, basically more facilities for mission planning and communications. The US will start building Constellation class frigates because they need more ships but it would be too expensive (and unnecessary) to build even more Arleigh Burkes (than they already are). So, frigates for the US are basically cheaper destroyers.
It’s a fine FFG but in truth the reason why they will be under equipped in U.K. service goes back to the 1990s when the RN made its choice to build 2 big CVF carriers - they knew then hull numbers for future DDG, FFG and SSNs would be significantly reduced. The U.K. has the Navy it can afford, the hope we are going to build a larger Navy is deluded.
I realized that the secret to making a million is saving for a better investment. l always tell myself you don't need that new Aston Martin or vacation in Hawaii just yet and that mindset helps me make more money Investing.
At a time like this, some are wondering whether bitcoin is a good investment. Anyone considering investing should remember that all investments involve some risks, whether they're stocks, commodities, or Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin.
Because the core of your nations income and its security/economy is nothing to do with those. It's to do with global trade. That's in part why the large allied fleet is floating off the north of Taiwan. During the height of the British Empire; almost nothing happened in Britain at all. The power of the RN was at sea. Thousands and thousands of miles from you - defending investment and supply. Its not that different today. Which is why so many felt they could overlook the importance of Brexit. In reality though Brexit needed to happen to turn certain wheels and move things a long. I am nigh certain that is why it was allowed to happen regardless of London/Scotland/Media fuss. They could have just fiddled it like Biden in the US otherwise. There is a script here. People laugh sometimes; but here in the east we know (and have seen in real time) the rise of China. The ships coming into the ports supplying them (US) and just what has been happening. I have a suspicion you will be fine. Let the RN build as they need. The fleet do have a good notion of what deployment options they already need. See for example how many are saying 'we need to build many more'. No you don't. Not yet. Because they are overlooking something. What if you heavily invest. Take the years to build - and then there is a new development and your flag ship is suddenly at the bottom of the ocean. That could easily see your economy and entire nation join it; if you cannot adapt to why it sank - and build something new. With all that money that...you still have. Given thought. As the world is struggling as a whole - Britain isn't doing half as bad as you might suppose. Hello from China. The little bit that isn't communist yet.
![[ENGSUB] UNPRODUCTIVE DAY ใช้ชีวิต (เปื่อยๆ) ด้วยกัน 1 วัน! | OUROAD CLOSEFRiEND SS2 EP.9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pyYKZ3kra9w/mqdefault.jpg)
We just need a hell of a lot more of them.
@MyAqaa The last budget was an increase.
Problem is paying for them ???? The UK lost more than £900 million in tax each year because of the hand gun ban in three parts of the UK ! this year I have lost £15,000.00 thanks to the Corona AIDS from China as I was laid off from my aircraft work I have closed my sawmill and burned more than £22,000.00 in kindling wood to waste thanks to the Gov and media telling people not to use wood anymore for cooking and heating. I have also lost £8,000.00 because I can still not rent or buy any land for free range hens for eggs. If taxes went UP to pay for more ships we have NO real use for as the UK gave up fighting the Taliban everybody body would be bitching about paying more tax !
@@RJM1011 China bud and would rather see the defense budget increase then money given to help people who clearly should not be running a business
@@Cheese_Boi1986 That makes NO sense
@@RJM1011 the guy who replied to you i translated it.....
I think we're building 15 of them here in Canada. But honestly with over 200,000km of coastline to patrol and protect, we could easily make use of another 15
They're beauties...but way too expensive, we need subs too...
I'd go 8 T26, 16 Type 31, and a new fleet of 8 SSK.
The more I hear about defence spending the more I think we ought to spend on education and health - and I've been pro-defence spending for over 40 years. Still am, yet the last few years I think we've all witnessed the need to improve learning and health infrastructure.
Easier to send some F-16's.
@@rpm1796 Canada needs AUKUS subs. They should model their navy after the Australians. Canada, UK and Australia should build 1 type of vessel each and sell it to each other to balance the trade.
@@TheBooban The US would never let Canada have nuclear submarines, let alone the canadian population. Look up the Canada class submarine project.
24 at least required. The Navy is stretched too thin as far as i am aware.
Where do you think the money is going to come from to fund 24 for the Royal Navy?
@@jjb4531 foreign aid is a huge asset to the UK and a big part of our soft power, and social welfare, well its running thin already we can't take money out of it
@@Karlm01 Well i was thinking that as they scrapped 22 Destroyers and replaced them with 8 new ones. Frigates are generally smaller and cheaper. So to make up the overall ship numbers required to police all the shipping lanes we are expected to cover. As far as i understand it debt is not really a massive problem. After Covid showed that money does grow on trees with the amount of embezzlement by non existent PPE suppliers led by MP's. In addition there is nothing stopping the government from issuing bonds that will mature in 10 years to be bought by speculators that have been promised a good return. Check Prof. Blyth of Brown University, for his take on national debts. Very interesting views and ideas. Lots of YT videos with him explaining stuff. 😊
Why? And where is the money going to come from not too mention the manpower?
@@jjb4531 including the NHS?
Outstanding !!!! Build , build a bunch these ships !
I’m pretty sure there is more to optimising the bridge than just putting in bigger windows.
It has Better cupholders too.
@@steelrad6363 And Bluetooth.
@@devonlord99 They have Bluetooth, WIFI and Direct Satellite internet, even the much older RN warships have 😂
It's a shame we couldn't stick to the original 13 as planned whilst still getting the Type 31 & 32 frigates.
Also with Aus and Canada building more of these ships than we are i'm suprised that didn't lower the overall cost for us to build more.
The original plan had 5 of those 13 being general purpose rather than anti sub. It's a lot of ship for a GP frigate, I'd prefer a larger number of worse ships.
@@davidhouseman4328 10 T26 and 6 T31 would be a better number tbh
If they stuck to the original 13 then the current type 31 ships wouldn't have been conceived as they were designed to replace the 5 general purpose Type 26.
Costs can’t come down because the Canadians and Australians will be making them in their own yards. Costs will actually go up. It would be better if the UK built subs for Australia and Canada and buy type 26 and type 31 from them.
Australia are building upgraded better ships based on the Type 26.
Just need a crew now
Just as long as it is modular and you can add lasers and other technologies coming in the future
I agree in principle but lasers will never be practical on smaller ships like this. Nuclear carriers perhaps, but not this. Not without another 5-10 decades of development.
@@Knox-umbra development happens faster than you know you should look into U.S.'s strides . If Stryker vehicles can have lasers I see no reason why a large frigate/surface combatant can't add laser weapons in the near future
@@Knox-umbra we don't even need alot of time to prove technologies like lasers it is just that militaries take a while to implement them in service so I would say 5 or less years
@@Knox-umbra why won’t they be practical?
The animation 3D model looks like it was made for some British roblox MILSIM unit.
They need to build 6-8 more of these to offset the Daring Class of dockyard divas (Costly rebuild and/or early retirement?). Perhaps a batch #2 version of Type 26 with increased AAW capabilities.
Fingers crossed the improvement package will fix the problems with the T45s engines.
Type 45 will be replaced with type 83 which will most likely be based on type 26 that won’t be for a while though
@@GGG19872 Not until the mid 2030's at the earliest.
I am hoping for a larger hull than the T26 given the prevalence of air and surface launched anti-ship threats. Especially if it is also going to carry an ABM capability.
@@bobthebomb1596 they would probably make it bigger, and there’s enough space for missiles because the mission bay at the back wouldn’t really be needed so they could put a load there. I could be wrong though and they could make a completely different one
@@GGG19872 A modified Type 26 is certainly one of the hulls under consideration. Reducing the size of the flight deck and hanger is another option to create more space.
A new, slightly larger hull design would be my preferred option, but I just want a ship that works and provides the best possible protection to our sailors.
Can't be commissioned soon enough!
Strangely enough the Canadian version is the most heavily armed with a mixture of British OEM weapons and U.S. aegis components
Because we have Type 45 destroyers. The RN's Type 26's will be used primarily for the ASW role.
Yeah these will be Canada's only ships. They need to be able to do almost everything.
I would say armed to a normal standard. It is the U.K. ships that are going to be under equipped, courtesy of a defence budget 3 times smaller than it was in 1990.
The Canadian ones are based on the Smaller Type 31 Also the Canadian Navy have not got any bigger ships like Destroyers with the big weapon's so need more punch
@@zenko247 the type 26 Canadian is twice the size of our last destroyers as such with 12 as a/s ships and 3 as a/a vessels the destoyers are being replaced
Urk.. that camera motion / movement is making me feel quite queasy....
Let us hope they can get some anti ship missles in place at some point, we are lacking in that field.
Could be a fairly straightforward modification for most ships and would be better received around the world than weapons.
Just a small point for the future. The helicopter name Chinook is pronounced shi-nook. It has a dual meaning: a Native American tribe in the Pacific Northwest, and a warm, dry wind.
That said, the frigate seems impressive. I hope the USN takes a good look at these and maybe considers ordering a few dozen.
Certainly a lot of expectations
0:29 Why is it not build on an inclined surface, making the launch of the ship easier ?
Beautiful
Are these being sold to Australia ? Also how far behind is the launch of the first destroyer/frigate ?
I think Australia is getting 9 of these ships but it's a different variant.
The UK has already launched its first Type 26 Frigate, the HMS Glasgow. Australia's Hunter class variant of the Type 26 is a few months ahead of schedule and should arrive by late 2020s/early 2030s. Canada's CSC variant of the Type 26 is running a year behind schedule and should arrive by the early 2030s.
I don’t understand why people think they are doing stuff wrong and not using the correct kit. If it’s being used then it’s being used for a reason. It is there job to make it work and get the best design so I kinda trust them more the some random on a TH-cam video.
Can it fly thanks to the fairies specifically recruited on-board?
Oh God!!!!
Russian by any chance
Give crew members more space own room small and tight fitting.
More comfortable the sailors better battle performance
The Type 26 is supposed to form the basis of the Royal Canadian Navy's new frigate class, but like most of our programs I'm sure we'll end up overpaying by 2 to 3 times more for it.
That is to be expected. We are not just buying the ships. A larger part of that purchase is the technology transfer. We are learning how to build ships which gives us the capeability to build more and take care of ourselves in the future. Producing these ships and sustaining an industry will create generations of ship builders that can one day be asked to build our future ships and improve our capeability further.
Yes it would have been cheeper to buy them from people who already would do a better job. However, that leaves us unable to replensih our losses in a war. It means we will always need to buy ships designed for someone else or some other purpose. We don't currently have the knowledge to design and produce world class ships. With our previous boom and bust strategy of buying on one order contracts we would loose all that knowledge as the people working on those ships retire or become unemployed. They move elsewhere or change jobs and the knowledge is lost and never built on.
@@jaysonkmendoza totalmente de acuerdo contigo, en España acabamos de gastar el triple en diseñar y construir nuestro propio submarino de lo que nos ubiera costado comprarlo fuera. Pero ahora tenemos un sub que es nuestro, no dependemos de otro país ni para sostenerlo ni en el futuro para reemplazarlo. Otra cosa es que un país pueda asumir ese coste. Por desgracia solo unos pocos países pueden diseñar y construir sus propios sistemas en todos los ámbitos, pero al menos tener cierta autonomía te posiciona mejor para negociar en el extranjero.
@@jaysonkmendoza Canada has been building her own ships for years. When Canada buys a warship or a fighter the basic lifetime cost is provided unlike the USN which just includes actual purchase or build price
@@alpearson9158 We have built our ships is a lot different than keeping a ship building industry. We generally build our ships in boom and bust cycles and the problem is what happens in the log period between orders. When an order winds down work drys up and most of the jobs are lost. Thus knowledge is lost as people retire or move elsewhere. Moreover ship building companies will restrain their capita investments since they cannot guarantee future business. Design doesn’t happen because without more models it’s not necessary and we don’t have experienced engineers to get it right since they couldn’t find employment here. Also companies that support such ships experience the same problem.
In contrast this is why all countries that build ships have a policy to maintain a ship building industry through continual ordering and designing concurrently. It creates stability and encourages people to make a career out of it. Support companies pop up for their many systems and components and often start to innovative over time as they think they can do it better. Ship designers can also find constant work and since they can have a steady existence knowledge of past design errors can be passed down leading to continuous improvements in new builds and refits.
This has value to a nation because it provides the capabilities to replace losses, and generally yields designs bette suited for the home navy. However some of the biggest advantages are indirect because those companies sell their services to other companies too for extra business and also often develop civilian variants with their know how fuelling innovation.
Lastly costs are deceiving since where money is spent matters a lot for countries. 80bn at home can be better than 60bn spent mostly abroad because of how economics work. Money spent at home generates income and that income growth is exponential due to the velocity of economic activity created fuelling the tax system through sales and income taxes. Money abroad has little to now recovery involved.
Still think that they compromised on the number of VLS. They could have replaced the 24 CAMM mushroom launcher on the bow with another 24 VLS for a total of 48 VLS. Selecting Mk41 VLS also questionable because RN doesn't use any SAM from USA. They could have installed 48 Slyver VLS and since RN is a partner of FCASW with France that's a good choice. They should also install two 4 cannister of anti-ship missiles from I-SSGW. That's 48 VLS, 24 CAMM, and 8, anti-ship should have been the configuration for RN.
The Hunter class should definetly have atleast 48 MK41 or 57 VLS. Preferably the 57 since it is more maintenance friendly.
@@carisi2k11 Mk57 is only installed on the periphery of vessels. They should have 48 Mk41 VLS in the bow and a 6/8 - cell self-defense Mk41 or 24 Mk56 VLS with ESSM on top of the mission bay. Then, add 8 cannister of anti-ship missiles on top of that.
It's not built for area air defence, you'd need a big upgrade in radar as well, generally making it a different ship. So the ability to use Aster isn't useful. MK41 has wider use for choice in weaponry and compatibility, it will include FCASW.
It's not actually the mushrooms, that was a Type 23 thing since CAMM is longer than Sea Wolf and they were using the same canisters. These will be more usual hatched VLS modules. Would have preferred quadpacked ExLS but it is as it is.
As for the Mk41, all accounts point to Tomahawk and LRASM capability, as well as potentially VL-A and maybe SM-6 or even -3.
@@ryanbrewis6990 I think it's basically the same launchers used from the Type 23 that will be refitted on the Type 26 to save money(I don't disagree with that idea because that's smart but they should only use it on top of mission bay and the ones on bow should have Mk41 or Slyver since it's more flexible). My reasoning is that RN is paying a lot money for this vessel and they should maximize the capability they can get on this vessel especially they don't really have that large of fleet unlike USN or China. It's unlikely for RN to buy SM-6 or SM-3 since they use their own CMS and I doubt they are likely to buy CEC for their vessels aside from their F-35B's. They will probably prefer Aster 30B1 NT than the SM-3 or SM-6 itself.
What a shame we’ll probably end up having no more than a handful of them. There comes a point when you just need more platforms, rather than a handful of very expensive ships that are only slightly more capable but equally susceptible to simple drone attacks. Royal Navy’s procurement and R&D is all over the place. The Type 83 will probably end up being so expensive we only get 2 of them.
And knowing New Zealand, we'll just probably not buy this type of ship, and fudge around for a few more years before making a panic buy on something that's not fit for purpose. Or what has been a lot of commercial grade building, when it should be military spec built ships instead.
Type 31 would suit NZ more.
The moderator should learn how to pronounce "Chinook" (Shi nook).
Good upgrade on the radar but looks pretty weak on the weapons loadout, esp on the missile inventory.
@@markcooke5270 But the number of missiles, only 8?
@@oculosprudentium8486 I think that figure is for the 31E. Still not enough.
@@oculosprudentium8486 48 sea ceptor cells, 24 MK41.
@@davidhouseman4328 ok i could only see 8
Two blocks of 24 CAMM, one of Mk41. At 0:39 you can see the 4x6 modules just above the hangar and at 1:36 just before it cuts to the view of the 5"/62 you can see the forward VLS farm.
All that room lost on a mission bay for 4 boats, what they do need is more weapons, look at the Burkes and their VLS compared to our type 45's, more missiles, more varied loadout, we seem more concerned our ships humanitarian relief and goodwill tours..Really ships of this size should be bristling with weapons like the Chinese and Russian competition.
Type 45s are getting 24 extra missiles.
What new weapons will it have ?
Let's hope that when they spec these, they learn from the Type 45 debacle. What are the odds.
Learning pretty high, that there won't be other issues, less so.
The powerplant situation is a lot better than the Type 45, the Type 26 has the same gas turbine as the two fitted in the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, so a nice healthy power generation excess for future system upgrades and additions.
The U.K. can’t afford it.
@@zipz8423 The fact we're already building them... suggests we can.
HMS Richmond is the first Type 23 Frigate to have the PGMU Upgrade to it's propulsion systems,and while not exactly the same layout as what the Type 26 will be equipped with there are certainly common elements,and she completed CSG21 without issues.
8 won't be enough. Building a mix of 10 subpar versions just won't cut it.
You willing to pay more tax for more ships
Who are you planning to fight?
@@anthonylittlewood810 Who wouldn't? Stop foreign aid, stop spending tens of billions (mininum) a year on immigration support schemes (especially illgeal) - this alone would very easily cover any bulking of the armed forces.
There is plenty of vanity projects we could cut into that aren't needed, but the latter above we spend. Alot more on than many realise.
@@zipz8423 No one hopefully, but we both know who. Not the man of the (sadly) dying out people who is in your picture.
@@BroadHobbyProjects total agree with you mate 👍
Still don't understand why they are fitting a 5" gun to a dedicated ASW platform.
A smaller calibre multi-purpose gun would have been better and maybe allowed for an increase in VLS cells. No way will they risk one of those for gunfire support.
I agree. I think it would have been better to have a 5 inch on the type 31 as I'd rather they were used for gun fire support than the expensive type 26. But maybe that would have been too pricey for the type 31.
I'd imagine they've gone through all the options, and (hopefully) picked the most suitable weapons for each platform
If they didn't have the 5 inch guns then the RN would in the future be left with only 6 ships capable of naval gunnery for shore support. Type 31 won't have a gun capable of that.
Under the current model the type 31 will cover the day job while the type 26 goes to war so basically there isn't a less risky asset to put them on.
@@cardiffflyer
When are the navy going to provide gunfire support that could not be handled by a 56mm or 75mm these days?
We have two carriers for CAS duties and any ship close enough to be hit by medium artillery will likely be facing anti-ship missiles.
If we absolutely must have NGS capability then buy a few GP versions or fit it to the Type 32 and don't risk what few ASW and air defence assets we have.
@@bobthebomb1596 considering the size of the navy all surface escorts should have to have the capability to provide NGS otherwise your limiting the capability to only a couple of ships who may not be available when needed.
Surely it's better to have the capability of 5 inch naval guns and not need it than not to have the capability and need it one day.
32 VLS for the Hunter Class Frigates is not enough. For a destroyer size ship, we should rethink this seriously. They do look like magnificent ships.... but we nee more offensive power for the buck.
if I understand it correctly, doesn't the UK design have vls hatches on top of the mission bay? So that they can swap in the silos for war time? is that right, there seems to be a laod of vls towards behind the mast on the UK version. I think the problem with the Australian version is that the Radar is so dam heavy and power hungry.
That’s great..build quicker please🙏😁
yeah...ok....but the Army is being reduced to 73,000....wtf use are these going to be in a war? And $1.8 billion each ? What in the actual hell ??
The only major power we will be fighting the next half a century is China. Our army will be unable to go toe to toe with them with large division/Corp size formations like we could against the Soviets. (especially with many in society being too soft to join the armed forces so not enough recruits)
Having a larger, more advanced & powerful fleet is our first line of defence.
The Army will re reole the Royal Marines, paras and a new rangers Brigade into tier 2 spec forces better equipped and armed to fight essentially large scale guerilla attacks/strikes.
The SAS, SBS & SFSG will be doing more advanced ops and more active than usual.
The main bulk of our army will be essentially holding forces and a framework for building a much larger army in the event of all out war.
The Royal airforce will likely have around 100 + Tempest 6th gen stealth fighters (if we build them) all with their own drone assets for beefing out output and recon abilities.
Our military is tiny compared to the late 80's.
Ideally we should increase our defence budget to around 3.5% of GDP to fill out the pre mentioned above.
It's not a CHINook but a Shinook.
Awesome Just Build More of them
And who do you get to crew them? I suppose we go back to the days of press gangs huh?
@@overcorpse Plenty of Skilled Workers in the Uk
@@oliversparks1459 So why is the Navy 6% understaffed already?
@@overcorpse Rules and Regulations ?
@@oliversparks1459 Gotcha, you're clueless.
We are no longer in sailing ships early days four or eight person to a room.
Try each person own space stops spread of sickness and desease and sailors shall perform better
does it run on XP? hahahhaa
Why just anti air weapon ? What about anti ship ?
PFC A There are going to be 24 Mk41 VLS cells on board which can carry a lot of different missiles such as Tomahawk, Harpoon and hopefully the future ASM. However there should be room for ASM canisters as well but I’m not sure
@@archiecroft7114 ok thanks just didn’t seem right having just anti air weapons when that’s the main role of the 45s
@@archiecroft7114 It was announced fairly recantly that the Type 26 will be armed with the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW) from 2028. This will be launched from the Mk 41 silos if I am not mistaken.
@@AndyH2023. I think it will be basically because it isn't fixed yet, we have a Interim anti ship missile decision coming soon and a development project for the FC/ASW.
@@Cravendale98 it’s not been confirmed how the missile will be launched yet.
I hope lessons have been learned from the T45 fiasco !
The opening scene shows the consules above the lower window line by quite a bit, thats a dead spot for observing. Should they be lower !
We need these ships now and a lot more off them. Selling old ships too Greece and upgrading ships are stop gaps. Supply chains, securing sea lanes and international maritime laws are more relevant then ever. This is a good start but is it enough and in time.
Deluded post Brexit thinking, the U.K. is a bit part player in 2021. The days of big navy are over. We can’t afford a bigger navy and we certainly can’t crew it. Young people don’t want to go to sea anymore.
Rip 4.5”
Gonna need em soon
Not a fan of Frigates, hope for more Type 45 or AB class.
They won't be a frigate in the sense of the 50s-70s. These ships are just a shade smaller than the Type 45s in length/width and tonnage. They're almost twice as big (and infinitely more versatile and powerful) as the Type 42 destroyers. They're essentially the same size as many WW2 era light cruisers.
Not enough of them....
China's taking notes.
Why ? So they can build a cheap copy?
Why don't US and UK navies have gunboats just loaded with shitload of antiair, anti-ship, crusie missiles, torpedoes and phalanx.
The US does, it’s called an Arleigh-Burke class.
@@TT-hd3zi I meant build hundreds of small, cheap corvette style guided missile ships that can overwhelm enemy due to low cost and high numbers.
Please tell me what is the difference between the roles of corvette, cruiser, frigate, destroyer?
@@farzana6676 corvettes are far smaller vessels that won’t perform as well in higher sea states or far away from ports (lack of range). They are also not as survivable and can’t carry as many weapons. Frigates and destroyers will depend on what navy but for the Royal Navy frigates are anti-submarine and general-purpose vessels whereas destroyers are anti-air. Cruisers are meant to be vessels that can do everything and work alone far away from any friendly vessels but none are currently in service with the UK.
@@TT-hd3zi Right I did not think about range or sea states, I see that Russian naval philosophy seems to have a strong emphasis on guided missile corvettes.
So in terms of the US navy, can you tell me why they would need all 3 types frigates, destroyers and cruisers? It seems the differences are basically size but they are all surface combat ships?
@@farzana6676 countries will shape their navies around their requirements. For the Soviet Union/Russia they generally operated/operate closer to their own waters and ports so smaller, heavily armed ships were appropriate.
For the US Navy, the Arleigh-Burke class destroyers are the main part of the fleet and are multi-role warships. Ticonderoga class cruisers are slightly larger and their role is to serve as a command ship for a carrier battle group with what they call larger ‘flag facilities’, basically more facilities for mission planning and communications. The US will start building Constellation class frigates because they need more ships but it would be too expensive (and unnecessary) to build even more Arleigh Burkes (than they already are). So, frigates for the US are basically cheaper destroyers.
Give one to me, and myself together with Seamen Staines will keep the channel safe. I shall name this ship 'Black Pig'
No guns .
It’s a fine FFG but in truth the reason why they will be under equipped in U.K. service goes back to the 1990s when the RN made its choice to build 2 big CVF carriers - they knew then hull numbers for future DDG, FFG and SSNs would be significantly reduced. The U.K. has the Navy it can afford, the hope we are going to build a larger Navy is deluded.
We are building a larger fleet, escort numbers back up to 24
I hope everything is not as white as it appears to be
Plzz donet queen diamond 💎
I realized that the secret to making a million is saving for a better investment. l always tell myself you don't need that new Aston Martin or vacation in Hawaii just yet and that mindset helps me make more money Investing.
At a time like this, some are wondering whether bitcoin is a good investment. Anyone considering investing should remember that all investments involve some risks, whether they're stocks, commodities, or Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin.
For real is bitcoin a good investment? I'd love to have a diversified growth portfolio of about ($50k -$100k) that I can be aggressive with
I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price
We should be careful on money useage,if you're not spending to earn back,then stop spending.
She has really made a good name for herself
What's the point having these state off the art ships when you can't Evan protect our island and it's borders
Because the core of your nations income and its security/economy is nothing to do with those. It's to do with global trade. That's in part why the large allied fleet is floating off the north of Taiwan.
During the height of the British Empire; almost nothing happened in Britain at all. The power of the RN was at sea. Thousands and thousands of miles from you - defending investment and supply. Its not that different today. Which is why so many felt they could overlook the importance of Brexit.
In reality though Brexit needed to happen to turn certain wheels and move things a long. I am nigh certain that is why it was allowed to happen regardless of London/Scotland/Media fuss. They could have just fiddled it like Biden in the US otherwise.
There is a script here. People laugh sometimes; but here in the east we know (and have seen in real time) the rise of China. The ships coming into the ports supplying them (US) and just what has been happening.
I have a suspicion you will be fine. Let the RN build as they need. The fleet do have a good notion of what deployment options they already need. See for example how many are saying 'we need to build many more'.
No you don't. Not yet. Because they are overlooking something. What if you heavily invest. Take the years to build - and then there is a new development and your flag ship is suddenly at the bottom of the ocean. That could easily see your economy and entire nation join it; if you cannot adapt to why it sank - and build something new. With all that money that...you still have.
Given thought. As the world is struggling as a whole - Britain isn't doing half as bad as you might suppose. Hello from China. The little bit that isn't communist yet.
@@ErraticFaith Best Taiwanese commenter.
I wonder if the 50 centers will find this video?
No point in wasting all that money on all this tech when the Navy can't even stop rubber dingy's crossing the channel...Fact
It's not the navy's job
The RN can stop them fine. Being their job, or being allowed to. That's something different entirely.
They're junk....
Back up your statement with some substantive criticism