The 3 Type 26s - City, Hunter & CSC, where do they fit in the WWII navies that they will serve?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лип 2024
- Patreon 38 - Wayne Borean: Evaluating the RN/RAN/RCN T26 Frigates against WW2 ship classes, what are they and how does this fit their navies history?
• Patreon 38: Evaluating...
Long Patrol: The 3 Type 26s - City, Hunter & CSC, where do they fit in the WWII navies that they will serve?
• The 3 Type 26s - City,...
00:00 Three Type 26s
18:00 Part 2
36:00 Part 3
Book
Tribals, Battles & Darings; The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer amzn.to/2H2yVvb
Support This Channel
Patreon: / acnavalhistory
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @dralexclarke
Spreadshirt Store: acnavalhistorystore.myspreads...
Amazon Affiliate Store www.amazon.co.uk/shop/dralexa...
Bilgepumps / Social Media Links
Bilgepumps: the-bilgepumps.simplecast.com...
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / ac_navalhistory
Other Places to Find Dr Alex Clarke
Global Maritime History: globalmaritimehistory.com/tag/...
Academia.edu: alexanderclarke.academia.edu/
TV Agent: pastpreservers.com/portfolio/...
Canada has opted to use the 2x3-cell ExLS VLS installation with quad-packed CAMM SeaCeptor missile system for the CIWS role instead of Phalanx 20mm (which we do currently use on our Halifax class frigates) because as you said, the 20mm gun is rather short ranged and really there isn't any alternatives in gun system CIWS that offers as much engagement range as a missile. Compared to say, a SeaRam launcher, the CAMM missiles offer 2 1/2 times the engagement range and more than double the missile speed. It also incorporates an active RF seeker making it a fire and forget missile that doesn't need to rely on an illumination radar from the ship to guide it to an intercept. Also Phalanx doesn't actually have much of a track record in actually intercepting anti-ship missiles in real world combat situations. It failed to properly target anti-ship missiles during the 1991 gulf war (instead shooting at the CHAFF cloud put up by the battleship Misouri's SRBOC launchers), during the earlier Iran-Iraq tanker wars, the Phalanx on USS Stark was in standby mode when she was attacked by two exocets. A Japanese phalanx did shoot down an american A-6 intruder once though. ;)
As to the Mk41 VLS cells, its already known that our government has placed an order for new SM-2s and ESSM Block 2 missiles, and the most likely installation will be 16 cells with SM-2s and 16 with quad-packed ESSM. However, because the SPY-7 radar we've opted for is a variant of the Long Range Discrimination Radar (which is designed to track ballistic missiles and guide interceptors to them), its entirely possible Canada could in the future opt into the Anti Ballistic Missile defence program and purchase SM-3s or SM-6s....that is if the government ever had the political will to actually make such a decision. A more interesting bit of weapon purchasing is the decision to use OTO's 127mm/64 gun with the vulcano guided ammunition system. This will likely include the long range land-attack projectile which will offer a capability for task forces that US Navy ships lack for example.
I’d rather have the CIWS.
@@AugmentedGravity I assume you mean the Phalanx 20mm... and if so... WHY ? Why would you rather have an inferior weapon ?
@@DeeEight That isn't the question.
There are other gun based options we could have gone for mainly Goalkeeper, or Skyshield and the drawbacks of Seaceptor are 1. Cost and 2. It needs to be launched using the ships radar whereas most of the gunbased ones or SeaRam is they have there own search and track radars which adds redundancy the Seaceptors also take up VLS tubes we could be using for other missiles like SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 ASTER-15, or ASTER-30 as currently the Canadian type 26s are only going to be carrying ESSMs and SeaCeptors so the Canadian ships atleast won’t have any standoff defense capabilities
@@jameson1239 ?
What I find most interesting about our CSC’s, is how they’re building/designing them to be adaptable as needed. Simply by throwing strike-length mk41 cells adds so much adaptability to them in terms of possible load outs. I just wish we actually were going with 32 or even 40 cells instead of the now confirmed 24….
An excellent follow up to the live chat doctor, I completely agree with the summary conclusion & hope that the RN / RCN take up the use of the gun more in future projects (at least return to twin mount & hopefully a tripple on the type 83) keep up the great work 👍 take care, best wishes to you & the whole family as always doctor
Another great video! Thanks as always Dr. Clarke.
The Canadian ship is probably adjusting the dimensions to make sure it meets seawaymax. The draft for seawaymax is 8.1 meters.
I have been back to watch this video 6 times. Absolutely awesome video. Stumbled across this video and immediately subscribed.
A good day to you, Sir 🫡
With the SPY7 radar, Tomahawk cruise missiles, SM2/SM3/SM6 missiles, defensive torpedoes etc.. this gives Canada longer "legs" to intercept at standoff distances. I think it is important to look at these ships collectively, as that will be better globally. To allign multinational resources to protect certain areas with the ability to change dynamically. Canada has already started talks with Britain to patrol its arctic with nuclear subs, as Canada has nothing. I would suspect that helping patrol Britain with surface ships would be a good tradeoff? No one country can go toe to toe with Russia or China . Collectively, this is a different scenario.
The only problem with the design is the lack of VLS cells. It really should have at least 48
I agree with everything except your 2nd last sentence. USA would defeat China or Russia 1 VS 1
@@Theseus420 these are British, Australian, and Canadian ships. That being said, the American Constellation class should also have 48 mk 41 VLS cells
The same goes for the Hunter Class.
@@ronmaximilian6953 Canadian Type 26 has modular mission bay, where government can choose to add VLS cells if they want.
Thank you Dr. Clarke.
The Hunter class might use the canister launched variant of the LRASM, we are jointly developing a varient of it with Lockheed which they have labelled as surfaced launched, our airforce has also heavily invested in the air launched LRASM. A year ago I would have told you our government would have gone with the cheapest thing that was still considered capable, but with recent developments like AUKUS, and other lesser know adjustments and purchases going on in our millitary, it is clear to me that we are gearing up for the 'new cold war' if you will. That ultimately means we are prepared to splurged.
The Hunter-class $$$$$$ is partly because of the system integration including the highly acclaimed Aussie homegrown CEAFAR2 radar.
NSM it was.
As things are panning out November’23 it looks like the Hunter Class as planned may be reduced from 9 to 3 or 6 because now the fit out is deemed to be too underarmed for the size of the vessel. Quite possibly nine vessels will be completed but the follow on vessels after the first three will not have the multi mission bay but instead have a second bank of Mark 41 VLS giving it substantially more firepower. The RAN will be introducing a Class of Corvette of six to ten well armed vessels.
The Canadian ships have also packed on 900 tons, now projected to displace 7,800 tons, up from an originally projected 6,900 tons. Fully loaded, the ship is expected to weigh in at 9,400 tons - almost double the 4,700 tons of the currently fielded Halifax class, the former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC earlier this month. That shipbuilder is the project’s prime contractor and had worked with the government to award a subcontract to Lockheed to finalize the design.
In June 2024 we now see the Australian order reduced from nine ships to six. Modifications to the original design specs have contributed to a blown out cost from $35 billion to $45 billion for nine vessels which have in recent times been recognised as under armed (too few VLS cells ) - in comparison to similar sized vessels in the region ( China & the US having around 96 VLS ).
As a consequence only six Hunter Class will be constructed. A further eleven smaller frigates will be bought and built to compliment the fleet. The first three will have the 32 cell VLS as planned. The remaining three to be built will likely be the ‘up gunned variant’ offered by BAE systems - whereby the multi mission modules will be replaced with a 64 cell VLS magazine - totalling 96 VLS.
The Hunters will have a light displacement of 8,200 tons with a possible full load of 9,500 to 10,000 tons. The design changes increases VLS cells from the original 32 to possibly 48. Also the RAN is looking at replacing the Mk15 CIWS throughout the fleet with possibly the Searam system.
Haven’t heard anything about the last thing you mentioned there about the CIWS.
Here is my crazy plan for reloading VLS at sea.
You put the helicopter hangar and pad ahead of the aft VLS.
You put an enlarged helicopter deck on the replenishment ship.
Then you can use the helicopter hangar as interim storage for the missiles and the rear of the helicopter hangar can house a computerized gantry crane which can pick up a reload from the hangar rotate it 90 degrees and put it in it's cell on the launcher.
As the gantry crane is very stable reloading is quick and easy and when reloading is complete the crane is rolled back to it's storage space on the outside of the hangar doors.
When this is completed the helicopter or helicopters can fly back to the ship and reloading is complete.
What's interesting to me about this post is this. Back in the "old days" when the US Navy introduced the VLS for the Standard missiles on the Ticonderoga-class CGs. These ships had an at-sea re-load capability, but if it was rigged and/or in use. We were not allowed to photograph it, however, I only saw it in use once and it was many years ago...( early 90s ).
For the CSC: 12 SM-2 + 12 TLAM + 8 VL-ASROC in the Mk41 makes more sense than 16 SM-2 + 16 TLAM, in my opinion (mayyyyybe 14+14+6 or 16+12+6 at a stretch). The RCN pushes hard on ASW and I can't see us dropping VL-ASROC from their loadout, especially considering the CPFs currently don't have any standoff whatsoever beyond the two torps on the Cyclone.
CSC is more accurately a replacement for the capabilities we lost in scrapping the DDG-280 Iroquois class (namely area AAW and standoff ASW) than they are replacements for the CPFs, and I can very easily see them slashing the order down to only a few hulls in the post-COVID recession and replacing the CPFs with something else entirely (likely FREMM or Type-31, given the USN and RNZN's adoption of these designs, respectively). They already plan to run the CPFs into the 2040s, and I can't see our perpetually cash-strapped government and shoestring navy ultimately going for a single-class fleet of heavy frigates that are AT LEAST twice the size of the ones we've got now - we simply don't have the infrastructure or manpower to support an entire fleet of them.
I don't think the T26 program will see 2030. Mark my words, the whole thing'll be sharply curtailed or canceled outright in a vain attempt to balance the books in Ottawa, just like the F-35s. We'll only sign a replacement contract for the CPFs after yet another decade has passed them by, and the first of our undergunned, overpriced, made-in-Canada MEKO 2000s will eventually hit the water in 2050.
Anyway, great analysis, thanks for sharing.
Very plausible. The idea Canada would actually buy (almost) first rate military equipment, and equip it with heavy offensive firepower like Tomahawks, seems laughably unlikely.
Wanted to ask your thoughts on the sensors comparing the 3.
Is there a compelling argument in favour of having 3 different VLS cell systems between the Type 26 and Type 45? If I understand correctly, the Type 26 Sea Ceptor VLS can only hold Sea Ceptor, nothing else (yet). Likewise on the Type 45, the VLS can only hold Sea Viper (i.e Aster 15/30). By contrast the Mk41 can hold all manner of different weapons - quad packed ESSM or Sea Ceptor, SM2, SM6, Tomahawk, etc. etc.
Would it not have increased flexibility - for both T45 and T26 - considerably by standardising on a single VLS system?
Well to be honest both will have the sea ceptor vls, because that's what's being fitted as extra to the type 45s... that is cold launch air defence orientated VLS that gives very fast firing. I think the slyver will stay in service as long as the type 45, but with both type 26 & 31 getting mk 41, it may well be that the type 83 just has that as well...
Hi Dr. Clarke. Any reason why the City class does not have a Combat Management System? Both the Australian and the Canadian vessels have one? Excuse me if I missed your reasoning on the video?
It has the RN Standard BAE Combat Management System... I didn't mention it because honestly it's just what RN ships are fitted with... baring the Type 31s which will be trying out something else, although I've heard the 32s will probably revert to the BAE system.
It was in one of the graphics I used I think...
www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Frigate/City-Type-26-class.htm
The Type 26 is good ship and the hull design can be modified to fit AAW Role (which in my mind the RN should be Doing that instead of a Type 83) with only the loss of the ASW capablity (Aussies found out pretty quickily that they couldn't have Both). the type 31e design i find is a bit lazy and could've improve by evolivng the Iver class Frigates instead of using the class design current state.
I should comment that the systems fit for the Hunters is intended to make them as capable at air defence as the Hobarts will be after their future radar refit.
Yes, that means the Hunters will have a more capable AA sensor and system suite than what the Hobarts are currently fitted with; the only significant differentiator being the additional 16 cells on the Hobarts.
Both the Hobarts and the Hunters are to have full USN compatible CEC capability as well as full command facilities.
With this in mind, a Hunter can practically contribute just as much to the missile defence of a task force as a Hobart, only for a shorter time before running out of missiles.
I expect the Hunter to have 48 MK41 VLS cells. There should be plenty of room by the looks of the top down diagram in your video. There is also likely to be 8 harpoon or LRASM deck mounted launchers as well. The phalanx is perfectly fine for drones or fast and small ships. The supposed hypersonic missiles will need a hypersonic defense missile or lasers to defend modern naval vessels.
Although I'm not an expert on modern warships survivability against Hypersonic missiles. I don't believe that currently there is going to be confidence that a Warship will survive hypersonic missile attacks , and as far as I know a quick solution is not forthcoming. The Chinese missile if they are effective and have them operational in numbers have a massive advantage. Sorting the above should be the priorities for all Navys
12 would be much better. I'd also like to see them have 32 cell VLS silos for multi use as well as space to operate 2 Merlin helicopters ( and a few recon drones to assist with its radar etc)
Canada is also building 4 extra ships for the artic.
The missile silos amidships on the Type 26 and 31 are right next to the boat/mission bay. Now I doubt this has already been designed in because the cost would be hefty for something so complex, but in the future could a container full of reloads be zip-lined across for them to be loaded automatically or even man-handled into a silo?
All a future silo design of course, maybe something the Type 83 could have, as all current designs are already ironed out.
not really, because they are accessible from the roof... any you put across, you will have to store then man pack up and load... let's put it this way, there are easier and less risky ways to damage delicate missiles... but it is something to think about for furture designs.
What
I bet that IJN Shinano, HMS Unicorn, USS Vestal, IJN Akashi and HMS Resource and the Kamchatka will show up in a long patrol
08:00 RCN needs Pacific and Atlantic fleets.
08:45 Phalanx CIWS
12:00 Australian Hunter-class
13:25 RCN CSC
What do you think about adapting the "Avenger" cannon from the A-10 adapted to a Naval weapon? Pretty high-rate of fire, 30mm round, relatively compact considering the A-10 was designed to specifically to mount this weapon...A couple of 30mm rounds will take out just about anything at close range...VERY informative video!
That's pretty much what the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS is built around
Cool…I figured you’d know more about this “stuff” than I…My “time” was 80-00’ USN AW ( Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator ) SH-2F and SH-60F/HH-60H sensor operator/rescue swimmer…
@@DrAlexClarke which the RN only used on a handful of ships while the majority got phalanx. Goalkeeper is now withdrawn from Royal Navy service as I recall.
The problem with the Gau-8 is it's not actually very accurate compared to some alternatives (and why the Goalkeeper installation needed that heavy reinforced framework around the barrel assembly). A RWS fitted with a Mauser BK-27 can fire of nearly thirty rounds per second with more accuracy and stop a missile just as well. It's only a matter of having the right sensors and targeting system.
That sounds pointless.
The easiest option to replacement for the "R2" Phalanx is a compatible 7-missile SeaRAM installation replacing the 20mm gatling.
yeah, but witness the reloading at the end... I don't the sea ram for any ship which already has sparrow or sea ceptor...
@@DrAlexClarke A 70-some kilogram Rolling Airframe Missile, which to be put into a more or less horizontal tube is manageable, given the Sea Cat was hand reloaded (68 kg).
In a somewhat calm sea, of course. A special wheelbarrow might come handy.
My only request is that you watch to the end... and watch what they are using to reload a RAM missile... the sea cat was a lot sturdier...
@@DrAlexClarke 41:30 - 42:23 yeah, I missed that part, albeit the carrier-borne RAM launcher is a 21 "tube" box launcher, whereas SeaRAM (ie Phalanx replacement version) has only 7. Still looks more fragile than I thought :(
@@karlvongazenberg8398 yeah, I know that is the big one, but the missiles are still the same... it's fun, we forget that the air is a kind and forgiving place compared to human hands and good intentions
There aren’t enough launch cells to be any more than a picket ship in a fleet.
Not to combine sufficient land attack and air warfare defence missiles.
Exactly
Watching this video in late 2023, hearing Dr Clarke refer to Ukraine as a flashpoint sends a shiver up the spine…
In the contemporary sense (frigate = anti sub, destroyer =anti air)26 is a frigate, csc is a destroyer and hunter class somewhere inbetween. 26 is clearly intended for anti sub warfare first with a secondary anti shipping role and (better than point defence) local area defence as the last priority. CSC is intended to be an air defence and anti submarine vessel in equal measure, as a 'single class surface combatant) being equipped with aegis to be a better aa plaftorm than the iroquois class and potential for asroc, large hangar and acoustic quietness to be an upgrade on halifax class for asw. and with a more limited anti shipping arnament than 26. Hunter is meant to have a significant air defence role supplementing the larger aa destroyers while mantaining a predominantly anti submarine focus and is also to a slightly lesser degree underarmed while still managing to be overweight. Insisting on indigenous australian radars, and a full destroyer spec aegis were massive mistakes unless they plan to buy and utilise the range of sm-6 (but then no room for asroc, tomahawk, essm and sm-2). In the ww2 sense, like the light and heavy cruisers that shared the same hull, 26 is a light cruiser (larger number of weapons with shorter range but same performance within that range) and csc, hunter heavy cruisers with sm-2, sm-6 for air defence, anti ship
The CSC is primarily an ASW frigate with some AAW capabilities and the old Halifax class frigates will be too old to justify modernizing after the last Type 26 CSC is commissioned in the late 2030s.
@@JollyOldCanuck It's been referred to as a single class surface combatant quite frequently and when the Tribal (Iroquois class) were decommissioned, their was the assumption that the CSC would be better in the aaw role given their is no specialist replacement for them
Theoretically, a % of your VLS would be notionally isolated - as to never to be intentionally fired.
One would after all not want to intentionally transit from the Area of Operations for re-loading, whilst being totally unarmed.
Very interesting video , as a Canadian , I hope I am still around by the time the Type 26 comes into service . I have heard whispers , that the shipyards will be cutting steel late 2024( fingers crossed) . The sheer size of Canada is one of it's greatest defences and yet having the longest coastline in the world and quite a small navy is the major problem . Along with those 15 Type 26's , Canada could use 12 new submarines , that are ice-surfacing capable . Add in a major refuelling base and supporting defence in the arctic as well . Would love to hear your opinions and/or choices for a new submarine for Canada
Unfortunately, submarines are not much use for patrolling the portion of the Arctic that Canada needs to protect. That is in the Arctic Archipelago and all those channels between the Arctic islands are too shallow/narrow/just plain dangerous traps for submarines and I doubt that many or even any submarines ever go through there. The wide open Arctic Ocean doesn't have much strategic value to Canada and the publicity stunt of sailing to/surfacing at the North Pole once in a while does not justify the 30-40 billion that Canada would have to spend for 12 submarines. The icy Arctic is where they will be the least useful. Coastal defense is a much better use of submarines.
p.s. There is a refueling base at Nanasivik built for the AOPV fleet (currently building and commissioning).
@@abrahamdozer6273 I don't think you understand how submarines work, submarine have availability of 33% to 45% because of maintenance they require, which means out of 12 subs only 4-6 will be available at one time.
@@niweshlekhak9646Actually, I understand that very well. I'm retired Navy. Perhaps, what you don't understand is that all the waterways within the Arctic Archipelago including both courses of the Northwest Passage in Canada are shallow. narrow, shoal-filled, ice filled and there is zero chance of safely opening submarines there ... whatever the service cycle is. Transiting the internal Canadian Arctic waters in a submerged submarine is not possible. Those nuke boomers all sail around outside all that and it isn't much where the RCN needs to patrol.
@@abrahamdozer6273 This is not the 20th century now you have subs that can operate in shallow waters. South China Sea is shallow, Korean peninsula is shallow. Yet all the countries there keep making submarines.
@@niweshlekhak9646 You need to take a good hard look at what you are talking about ... and by the way, The Canadian Navy's 20th century Oberon Class submarines operated in VERY shallow water and there is nothing out there now (in Western navies anyway) that can match them, so that part is wrong., too. The Straits of the Northwest Passage ARE NOT the South China Sea. It more like the Alaska Inside Passage except many times longer and more complex. Think of a "Long Island Sound" half a continent long. You really need to get a bigger clue. Almost the entire "inside" Canadian Arctic is a death trap for any submarine ... surfaced or submerged.
The cost/benefit of gun based defense vs current and future air threats is ... let's say unfavourable. Cost is not just financial, it also includes deck space, weight, power, and crew.
I think designing ships to a single role is insane. The Destroyers that lack any ASUW and Frigates that lack Ageis or anything similar is insane. I agree the phalanx is dated and failed more times than it was successful.
I'm curious as to how well these ships will handle a saturation missle attack?? I feel that's how the Chinese navy will do there initiall attacks in a war situation.
Depends on the version I would think. The AUS/CAN versions will have Aegis and 32 VLS cells. I'd imagine they would fare almost as well as larger ships like the Arleigh-Burke class against single waves, but the smaller number of VLS cells will mean they will withstand fewer waves.
I think generally speaking, against a similar sized navy there is nothing in the world with enough anti-ship missiles to saturate their defenses. It would take a larger force and/or aircraft to carry enough missles to do the job.
Can’t say i agree with all the points in here but
With the T31 getting the Bofors 40mm Mk4 I think we should have dropped the DS-30M and replaced them 1:1 with the Mk4. Asking for the Phalanx to go the same way is probably too much but would be funny.
The CAMM cells, would have preferred to copy the Canucks and load ExLS. Four three cell modules equals the CAMM load on the T26 with less footprint. 12 fore and aft doubles the number. The hangar is just a single door which is daft when you're capable of carrying two Merlins. Really we should be putting NSM/LRASM on every ship we can, the gapping of a heavyweight AShM isn't a thing any navy but the RN is doing.
The T31 should be getting uparmed with more CAMM and Mk41 for GP.
There's a lot I would like to see improve, quite honestly the RN is doing ok but not great, and with how the government are running things I'm not sure how we'll be able to keep up.
1 I'm rather surprised that the Hunter class doesn't have the 24 Sea Ceptor missiles amidship for point defense. I wonder if there isn't a problem integrating these with the radar.
2. Obviously, it's difficult to discuss the capability of radar systems. Nonetheless, I'm a little concerned about the Artisan 997 Radar to track and target hypersonic weapons like the Zircon missile.
3. These 3 classes of frigates have 127mm/54 guns. I hope they get American Hypervelocity projectiles.
4. Stealthy Drones will make CIWS more important. A drone with even a 10kg warhead could do bad things to a radar or bridge.
Hi Ron, honestly, the engagement range of sea ceptor vs a Hypersonic, the Artisan is fine... more than likely the aim is for them to be given wider protection by Type 45 and AEW, hopefully even F35 CAP... so if they are the target of a hypersonic attack, focused on them... then a) the enemy has a lot of money to burn and b) something has gone badly wrong elsewhere, which leads to the question why are they there in the first place... it's a question of priorities, the advantage of the Type 997 is it is flexible, off the shelf, debugged and with a clear path for development, many will come off Type 23s, so expect them to only make it to the mid life, if that, upgrade...
Bit of a late reply, but on your first point, I think you are broadly right. It would take a fair bit of work to integrate the Sea ceptor into the stock Aegis combat system, let alone with the CEAFAR radar. Another consideration is that the ESSM fulfills the same role as the Sea ceptor, so it would needlessly complicate everything to have more than one type of missile doing the same job.
What
@@AugmentedGravity is there a concern that I need to flesh out for you?
@@ronmaximilian6953 what😐
If they put the 16 Mark 41 VLS with Quad-Pack SeaCeptor they'd have 112 SAMs making a first-rate so why choose
24 GWS.35 VLS for 24 SeaCeptors instead of 16 Mark 41 VLS with Quad-Pack SeaCeptor for 64 SeaCeptor
Could they put the 16 Mark 41 VLS with Quad-Pack SeaCeptor in place of where the GWS.60 Launchers are currently?
because it's faster launch, lighter and takes up less space is the answer I was given... basically the GWS is a dedicated SAM VLS... it's orrientated around that mission... so that's what they went with... plus if you look at it, the RN seems to esckewing quad packing, it would have made sense for the Type 45s but instead they're fitting GWS.35s. And whilst possibly cost is a factor, the RN are already buying and supporting Mk41 vls for the Type 26, so obvious it was decided better to go with dedicated for some reason.
@@DrAlexClarke Well the Mark 41 VLS in pure AAW can take 32 Quad-Pack for 96 SeaCeptor for a total of 144 or for a mix 'n match they could go with 8 Quad-Pack with 32x SeaCeptor, 8 Perseus Hypersonic Cruise Missiles for land-attack and for sub-killing 8 RUM-139 VL-ASROCs
Although really the replacement for the RUM-139 VL-ASROCs should really have been under development by now
@@DrAlexClarke Yeah I'm saving my Maintenance Aircraft Carrier questions for next Thursday's Livestream
Very important question here ..... was that Irn Bru you where drinking ???
yes, I know the accent doesn't sound it... but my family is evenly split scottish/cornish, and well you either drink whiskey or irn bru in the family, I went for the Bru... hence the Brushack, Bruships and all the other irn bru themed parts of the channel.
I agree with the insurance policy reasoning on having an anti air threat capability that is no so at risk of running out of ammo. I feel that in the event of a saturation type attack the vls could be used up in 1 or 2 salvos. In the near future maritine combat environmente realativly cheap autonomous AI assisted drone swarms could drain the VLS then when your out an anti shipping missile could hit you unchallanged. Just like in WW2 when and if a near peer opponent wants to sink your ship your gonna figure out that you can't have too much AA
RN Towns with their (as of 2022-23) 24-cell VLS with hypersonic strike missiles&5" guns are smooth fleet all-rounders.
You may even call them Soviet/Russian-style in this way, really reminiscent of improved Udaloy in idea and execution.
ASW +versized fleet salvo weapon just smells Gorshkov.
RCN/RAN ones are more of modern Counties.
I personally don't see too much point in seeing what was ASW and what wasn't ASW in WW2 in guide to modern naval warfare.
Appearance of SSN/SSGN was too much of a revolution in this sense, modern ASW combatants are infinitely more ambitious in this sense. Thus comparing them with ww2 cruisers is more right.
I'm sure you have explained why the RN abandoned its Goalkeepers for Phalanx in another video, but if you did it in this one, I overlooked it.
If you are going to take a "the perfect is the enemy of the good attitude", implied by your "something is better than nothing" claim, then I don't see the point in advocating for a 40mm system over the existing 30mm one. For one thing, it might be nice to actually hit the target with a 30mm shell rather than not hit with a theoretically more destructive 40mm one. Comparing the rates of fire of, say, Goalkeeper versus DARDO, that looks like a material consideration.
Anyway, comparing something to nothing is not a valid counterfactual; given that all these systems have weights and volumes, the relevant comparison is always and everywhere something to something else. Sure, you'd rather have Phalanx than nothing at all, but if the choice is Phalanx or CAMM, the latter is far more effective. Why not Phalanx and CAMM? Well, if you can squeeze in a Phalanx, then why not another CAMM? "Not running out of bullets" won't help you when you're lying on the ocean floor.
The RN had 33 ASW Frigate conversions of WW2 Destroyers then nearly doubled the fleet to 63 in the cold war then it falls to 14 Type 22 ASW Frigates to 11 Type 23 ASW Frigates to 8 Type 26 ASW Frigates
the UK planned to get 5 Type 62 Class AAW Frigates but didn't however they go to 4 Type 41 AAW Frigate and 4 Type 61 AAW Frigates but stopped as they clearly realise AAW is the destroyer's job
The 7 Type 81 GP Frigate got changed for 8 Type 21 GP Frigate and the surviving 6 got replaced by 5 Type 23 GP Frigate but the RN will have a larger at GP Frigate at 10 ship which is more
ok, Knight I'm not sure where you are going with this... but the RN bought 16 ASW Type 23, they got rind of the GP Type 21s without replacement, they got rid of the Type 22s to save money, sold 3 Type 23s for similar reasons and finally turned 5 Type 23s into GP by taking off their towed sonar array and having them operate Lynx/Wildcats more than Merlins...
to be honest they Type 31s are the first GP frigates the RN has built for a long time...
so RN is replacing 8 full ASW Type 23s, with 8 Type 26 and 5 GP due to loss of towed sonar array Type 23s with 5 Type 31s
@@DrAlexClarke I counted the ASW and GP Type 23 Frigates separately and I've been tracking back from the stuff the RN is getting to the old inter-Cold War stuff they got
And I count the Type 12/12I/12M as one family but to save time I combine their numbers the RN had with the Type 14 numbers
Why don’t the RN build a force of 2,000-2,500 ton corvettes that would free up the small number of frigates for more intense operations?
We sort of have with the B2 River Class. They are tasked with constabulary duties like APT North and South, Med and now Pacific. Roles where were previously undertaken by FF and DDs.
The Rivers are very lightly armed however.
The risk with a corvette is that you can get very close to the cost of a Frigate if you up arm it. But it won’t have proper frigate capabilities. Every weapon system impacts the design in cost, weight, personnel. There is the risk of turning a good OPV into a not very good frigate which in certain circumstances be more of a liability than an asset. Then there’s the Treasury who see hull numbers and don’t understand capability.
Lasers will probably never work (good enough) bar the new nuclear fusion is the power core of the ships and major computing power and electrical component improvements...
causes?
1) available power means range for the beam (bar nuclear you wont have it) moisture is the absolute enemy of beams dissipating and scattering them like nothing other... (not to mention smoke effects, rain, sea spray, even the plasma effect around hypersonic targets)
2) available power means duration of "burst" and number of repetition per minute (and of course storage of that power battery or capacitors)
3) Aiming them while in mid or moderate sea states especially for smaller vessels is a nightmare (they move about more) combined with the precision required for the kill... (remember 6 axis of movement for a ship and a boat load of random variables) Not to forget also the aiming limitations of a perfectly straight beam due to earths shape.
4) durability of lenses (how many "flashes" can produce) and replacement requirements (basically rearmament at sea)
5) redundancy, while you loose electrical power what do you do, current systems can work with local power power source for a while due to limited energy requirements (lasers do not)
Thus the "promising" to put it politely results of any test so far...
Well you got your wish sorta, they have announced the Canadian ships to be river class,,,, destroyers. should not at the time you were making this video designs had not been finalized so I would take the stats with some open to question. Note too it looks like the Canadian government is going for 12 subs possibly KSS3s plus ??number Vigalence class shore patrol.
wonder what every one thinks of BAE systems coming up with a depth charge for the main gun sort of a ww2 hedge hog
Upgun the CIWS with a GAU-8. Same radar guidance, bigger gun. I'm sure there is a company who would fall over themselves to do that, just for the opportunity to test it.
certainly an option which should be looked at... and to be honest that gun is used as the basis for the Dutch Goalkeeper...
Good idea 1976-2025! Dutch are replacing the Goalkeeper CIWS with RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) and Leonardo/OTO Melara DART 76 mm guided ammunition.
Isn't counting the British Sea Ceptor VLS cells the same as the "big missile" cells cheating since they can only hold one small short range air defense type of missile and thus can't offer the same range/punch of a true "big missile" cells in single load out and when using the same missile as the "big cells" they are literally worth 1/4 quantitatively. Not over complicating the rating system is valuable, but if it is going to tell you that the British version is a 3rd rate while the Canadian one is a 5th rate, even though using the same missiles the Canadian ship can carry a maximum of 152 Sea Ceptor type missiles(plus 8 NSM) to the UK's maximum of 144 while being more flexible in the potential load out of those cells. Either max missile count(ciws excluded) or "big vls only" with 4 Sea Ceptor/ESSMs counting as 1
no because they are still VLS... and the Sea Ceptor is a viable missile still for it's role; we don't count RAM missiles, but made the decision that as we count ESSM and CAMM as viable missiles, we have to count their cells towards it, and lets be honest yes the Australia and Canada ships can shoot at targets further away, but the UK ship has more shots to take, so it sort of evens out in the end. And your point about the 152 illustrates why we don't include quad packing when we are designing our system, because that is a load out, but you still only have the same number of cells and that load is a product of the cells the ship carries, not the missiles in them.
@@DrAlexClarke @Dr Alexander Clarke I don't think that undermines my point; that if ESSM and CAMM are viable missiles worth comparing to say an sm2, then logic dictates that counting the cells is not comparable enough to justify counting cells over counting viable missiles. Australia has the short stick no matter what here but Canada can load an equal number of CAMM as the UK and still retain an advantage of 8 naval strike missiles and 2 extra mk41 vls cells for whatever it wants. I think it's especially relevant since it seems that Canada is actually going to be sticking ESSM on it in addition to the CAMM system
I have no clue why they would do that but that's the Canadian government for you
@@alexdunphy3716 well we will have to respectfully disagree, because we came to the view that there was no point in a rating system based on hypothetical load outs... that's why we chose VLS, because yes you can quad pack, but you could also load with a land attack missile... what you have is x number of slots - again yes some are bigger, some are smaller, but we ended up being guided by the age of sail metric, where it wasn't the size, but total number of guns that counted... because it's point is to provide a quick guide to the ships involved, not a perfect description, a quick guide that would still more accurately reflect the ships in service than current designators.
@@DrAlexClarke well I suppose that's that then. Regardless, I am happy you took the time to respond
Dr Clarke current VLS systems are all muzzle loaders, we need to move beyond this to either breach loaders or even side loaders.
we can dream, but short of the emals gun system discussed in bilgepumps I don't forsee anything soon...
Super frigate **
wonderful content, but the over the course of every video you keep getting further and further from your mic
a 27mm phalanx ??
No?
Errrr???? where are this alleged ASW-optimisd UK City Class ASW frigate's two ONBOARD lightweight ASW torpedo tubes??? Y' know, an actual ship-borne ASW armament. Just for those disappearingly rare occasions when conditions in those disappearingly few areas like the North Atlantic, don't permit helicopters to be launched.
Would these be included in those disappearingly few onboard weapons systems that are designated as 'FFBNW', by any disappearingly remote chance??
Two things one just because its ASW optimised... doesn't mean the MOD & Treasury Value for Money Engineers (the same people who deleted, hangar, gym & hospital deck from the LPDs) are not going to do their usual stuff.
Currently there has been no announcement of inclusion, but like with other things that could be due to their getting gear of the ASW Type 23s as those retire...
@@DrAlexClarke Very true, although even a bureaucratic public sector parasite nestling comfortably somewhere in MoD(N)'s capacious innards like a happy little tapeworm, might deduce that the systems installed on the eight T23 ASW frigates will still be there when required. While in view of those ships own recent major life extension programme, their condition and suitability for installment on the T26 successors should also be known.
In which case there's still no reason to resort to the now VERY tedious 'ffbnw' excuse to never provide any post-2001 RN warship with a remotely adequate weapons fit. I know it's a minor point, but there are still a few of us old fossils around who entertain no doubt outmoded and even immoral perspectives anent the purpose for which our nation retains armed forces at all, the navy included.
In brief then, I must regretfully say that warships're kept against the VERY high chance that they'll sooner or later be needed to defend the nation and it's interests in war and kill The Queen's enemies. Preferably in whatever numbers that requires, which somtimes may be quite large. Additionally, that in doing all this, the chance of them and their own crews being lost is minimised.
We'd therefore prefer on the whole that they're invariably designed, built, armed, equipped and crewed solely with those ends in mind and NO OTHERS whatsoever.
In case anyone didn't know most reports on the type 26 projects in Canada and Australia are calling for cancellation due to the fact the type 26 is slow and lightly armed .Both countries are in almost to far to start over and have a design that can't do the job so I would expect to see projects cancelled or hulls cut and alternative designs selected .The type 26 design is great and the mission Bay is awesome but the propulsion system is not powerful enough to make the type 26 a multi role warship.
So I guess you didn't watch the video before commenting then...
But anyway, the power supply is modular and scaleable, the RAN & RCN could add in more units on the design... they just have to pay for it - the trouble has come because they've tried to go for the tricked out version on the baseline power design...
Also, if you think they're underarmed for their sizes then I suggest, you go read the data sheets mentioned in the description... because they're not, the British one maybe, but honestly the other two designs are pretty well armed...
And on the cost subject, this may interest you www.aspi.org.au/report/understanding-price-military-equipment
Any how, hope that helps.
We need to build or update our building ship building yards in Newcastle and Liverpool, then we need to build up our flee of frigates and destroyers to 50 ships minimum!! I would be happy if we built 3 30 ton fast aircraft carriers
Problem with designing a new class of carriers so soon is r&d costs it would probably work out better to build another Queen Elizabeth Class or two once the Electric Catapult option becomes viable since the design already exists.
If you want a smaller flat-top capability maybe bake that into the Amphibious Assault Ship replacements to get something similar to the Canberra Class, might need to be closer to 35k-40k tons to accommodate F35b's alongside the helicopter airwing needed for the assault role though.
Missile -defense: Its not just missiles. There are an already alarming multitude of drones - a basically stuff made from smartphones and lawnmower engines, carrying a mortar shell of similar.
Not something which would kill your ship (albeit a few hits can do a mission kill), but still something which can very well result in casualties and damage.
If you have to choose between hitting it with a few 100k USD missile or risk your ship - you are losing.
Another level is shortish range, but light missiles, the Spike NLOS being the "'archetype". It can be put on rather small boats (its weigh is a mere 70-some kilos for a 25 km range), hide on coast, launched from MALE drones, like the recently fame-gained Bayraktar... Also, if someone puts some seekers on Grad missiles.
And of course you could be on the receiving end of the equivalent of a 127mm Volcano guided round.
And the third thing is called "leakers", in this context, "proper" million dollar AShMs.
A CAMM-ER (Sea Ceptor) or ESSM with their 40+ km range enable the commander to launch a missile and if the incoming missile is not destroyed, launch another interceptor. But if that fails...
Thanks, As a canadian army veterans, I agree my gouvrenment does not really respect and support our navy air force and army.
Canada can't afford the planes to put on an Aircraft carrier even if they could build one.
i mean they can afford it but they don't spend on it
BS excuse that the RN T-26's don't need a more capable Air Defense Radar. Because they have the T-45.....(LOL)
Gun-based CIWS (if they use unguided shells) aren’t really that effective regardless of caliber. Stuff like Sea-Ram is just better in-terms of expected PK, especially against large, fast missiles.
No.
@@AugmentedGravity are you going to expand upon that?
Also, the engagement time for a SeaRAM is far shorter than of a Phalanx or other gun system.
It volleys off one or two missiles and switches to the next target whereas a gun system has a far longer engagement time, staying on the target until its destroyed or hirs the ship.
It’s easier to saturate a gun.
@@aidanmattson681 No.
I disagree with your interpretation. And you need to look how Type 12(m) came into being. Ask yourself, if the RN could would it not be building escorts with area systems to cover all spheres? The RN's current use of the term GP is wrong and goes against its own history.
Clangerbasher,
I would say what you are advocating for is not really an affordable option...
- For starters if you build all escorts with area systems to cover all spheres then they will be both pretty big (in excess of 10,000tons on current systems) and very expensive in terms of not just buying cost, but crew, maintenance and space to dock...
- It's also historically not what anyone has ever done, in the age of sail, the RN didn't build all first rates, they built mostly third rates (ships of the line) and 5th rates (frigates).
- I can see why you are arguing for it with the shrinking fleet, but the trouble is the fleet is shrinking because the cost of these systems is rising at a much greater rate of inflation than defence spending is, which means if you want hull numbers you have to go for a high/low mix in some form... and outside of major wars, spending has ever been thus.
Also if you are going to bring up the lovely Rothesay class frigates, which of course includes the poor HMS Plymouth, it is necessary to acknowledge their colourful history, the torpedo tubes for which weapons were never developed, the enlargement vs their priori (the Whitby class) to accomodate the Sea Cat missile system. These are lovely little ships I agree, but I'm not sure what the coversion of an ocean going escort into a fleet anti-submarine escort has revelance to the discussion of the Type 26 - so would be interested to hear why you brought them up.
Plus, and I can say this (and thank you as it's the first time I've ever been able to say it... so I promise I won't use it again, but I've been waiting for the book to actually come out for quite a while), as a person who has litterally written a book on the RN's use of the General Purpose descriptor as it applies to escorts, although in the case of my book destroyers in the 1930s/40s/50s, I would disagree on it's going against the term. I can agree that it has reverted to an extent to an earlier interpretation of what it means, but that's mainly in terms of late cold war to what it was in the earlier cold war/post WWII era.
Hope that answers your question and thank you for commenting.
yours sincerely
Alex
@@DrAlexClarke Thank you Alex. 😄
You're rambling.