Thursday, January 10, 2013

Type 26 details from BAE


You really do not want to miss the latest article up at Navy Recognition on the Type 26 frigate. They have, after long waiting and big efforts, managed to obtain answers from BAE to several questions raised by the new Type 26 model shown at Euronaval last year.

If you do follow my blog from some time, though, you already know all the answers: my independent analysis of the model, published in October last year, was entirely correct:

- Mainmast design has been improved
- The 24 main VLS cells are Strike Lenght (not yet determined if it'll be MK41 or Sylver A70 though, but what matters is that they will be cruise-missile sized)
- The big white radomes on the mainmast are, as i had guessed, for the SCOT 5 satcom system.
- The white tubes near the missile silo are exactly the same decoy launchers i had said they were.

Pardon the shameless self-celebration, but i'm proud to see i was right and able to give such an accurate update on the state of the Type 26 design process.
I'll do my best to be always just as accurate and timely!

6 comments:

  1. Strike length silos, confirmed side Satcom and located decoys.

    FANTASTIC

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great update and excellent analysis on your earlier post which is now confirmed by BAE. Makes sense for export potential.

    Will the RN actually fit the T26 with 24xA70 and what missile(s) would be fitted? Would 12xAster30 and 12xLAnd Attack make sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At political level, A70, being european, might be pushed forwards, with the collaborationg with France being the main reason for it.

      However, the RN openly favors adoption of the US MK41, which is also ready for Tomahawk. The A70 is not Tomahawk ready, you'd have to fund integration of the missile.

      On the other hand, with France and UK collaborating on a next generation cruise/anti-ship missile to replace Harpoon, Exocet and Storm Shadow/Scalp Navale, almost certainly going to be developed for launch from A70, there are factors in favor of both VLS systems.

      I hope for the MK41, with eventual integration costs to be faced later on when the new UK/France missile (eventually) arrives: MK41 opens the door, from the very first moment, to Tomahawk and all other US missiles, which is an advantage.

      Delete
  3. Gaby, thanks for the reply. Although the Mk41 has advantages I think the RN will stay with a wholly European solution of Sylver and MBDA missiles since that is fitted to the T45. Introducing new silo and missiles would be more expensive and costly to operate.
    The T26 won't be in service until 2023+ so there are still some years for MBDA to enhance/develop new missiles.
    Interesting the T26 doesn't show any provision for Harpoon or Stingray so if required this capability has to be in the VLS.
    I just hope the RN actually fit the full 24xA70 for maximum capability and not the smaller A50.
    Separately would like to see the T45 fit CAMM in a separate location like the T26 and free up the A50 silos for more Aster30. As it is the T26 will have more missiles (48xCAMM+24xA70=72) than the T45 with 48. Of course if it is possible to add an additional 16xA70 silos that would be best!

    ReplyDelete
  4. MOU between Sea Viper missile manufacturer, MBDA, and Lockheed to certify Sea Vipers and other MBDA missiles/weapons for use with Lockheed’s Mk 41 family of launchers**...

    Considering the current debate regarding potential US, UK + allies' military action against Assad regime Syria: it is worth noting that Raytheon's BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missile can only be fired from surface ships using the BAE/Lockheed MK 41 launcher system...

    "MBDA, Lockheed Martin sign missile launcher tie-up":
    http://www.janes.com/article/12556/mbda-lockheed-martin-sign-missile-launcher-tie-up
    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/#/news/3056
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/camm-opener-for-the-naval-missile-market-mbda-lmcos-mou-013187/

    And also worth noting the potential UK job-creation differences between adopting the BAE/Lockheed Mk 41 vs France's DCNS's Sylver variants:

    http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020042/vertical-launch-system?_afrLoop=789255576747000&_afrWindowMode=2&_afrWindowId=null

    "BAE to produce Mk 41 and Mk 57 VLS for US Navy",:
    http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsbae-produce-mk41-mk57-vls-us-navy

    "BAE to Manufacture Mk41 VLS for US Navy":
    http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news122573.html
    http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159592/40-million-contract-received-for-naval-canister-production

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ddg-type-45-britains-shrinking-air-defense-fleet-04941/ :

    "Britain has been considering adding a set of Mk-41 cells to the Type 45 destroyer, in order to hold SM-3 ballistic missile defense missiles.

    "... giving the Type 45s two things they don’t currently have: (BGM-109 Tomahawks), snap-launch anti-submarine defenses (VL-ASROC), and a larger array of air defense missiles that offer excellent coverage against saturation attack...."

    ** http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/naval-launchers-and-munitions.html
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mk-41-naval-vertical-missile-launch-systems-delivered-supported-updated-02139/
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/mst/features/120514-exls-allows-navies-to-have-it-their-way.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. MOU between Sea Viper missile manufacturer, MBDA, and Lockheed to certify Sea Vipers and other MBDA missiles/weapons for use with Lockheed’s Mk 41 family of launchers**...

    Considering the current debate regarding potential US, UK + allies' military action against Assad regime Syria: it is worth noting that Raytheon's BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missile can only be fired from surface ships using the BAE/Lockheed MK 41 launcher system...

    "MBDA, Lockheed Martin sign missile launcher tie-up":
    http://www.janes.com/article/12556/mbda-lockheed-martin-sign-missile-launcher-tie-up
    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/#/news/3056
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/camm-opener-for-the-naval-missile-market-mbda-lmcos-mou-013187/

    And also worth noting the potential UK job-creation differences between adopting the BAE/Lockheed Mk 41 vs France's DCNS's Sylver variants:

    http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020042/vertical-launch-system?_afrLoop=789255576747000&_afrWindowMode=2&_afrWindowId=null

    "BAE to produce Mk 41 and Mk 57 VLS for US Navy",:
    http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsbae-produce-mk41-mk57-vls-us-navy

    "BAE to Manufacture Mk41 VLS for US Navy":
    http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news122573.html
    http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159592/40-million-contract-received-for-naval-canister-production

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ddg-type-45-britains-shrinking-air-defense-fleet-04941/ :

    "Britain has been considering adding a set of Mk-41 cells to the Type 45 destroyer, in order to hold SM-3 ballistic missile defense missiles.

    "... giving the Type 45s two things they don’t currently have: (BGM-109 Tomahawks), snap-launch anti-submarine defenses (VL-ASROC), and a larger array of air defense missiles that offer excellent coverage against saturation attack...."

    ** http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/naval-launchers-and-munitions.html
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mk-41-naval-vertical-missile-launch-systems-delivered-supported-updated-02139/
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/mst/features/120514-exls-allows-navies-to-have-it-their-way.html

    ReplyDelete

Everybody can comment on this blog without needing a Blogger account. It is meant to keep the discussion free and open to everyone. Unfortunately, anonymous accounts keep the door open for spammers and trolls, so i'm forced to moderate comments and approve them before they appear. Apologies for the inconvenience.