Royal Navy presents computer images of Type 26 combat ship planned for 2020
The latest design of the Royal Navy's Type 26 Global Combat Ship (T26 GCS), the next generation of warships, was unveiled on Monday. The UK Ministry of Defence has released images showing the basic specification of the T26 GCS, which is a significant milestone in the development of this program.
The multi-mission warship, which is due to come into service after 2020, will be used by the Royal Navy in combat and counter-piracy operations, and to support humanitarian and disaster relief work around the world.
Since 2010 the MOD has been working with BAE Systems to determine the ship's basic capabilities and baseline design. Now that has been endorsed, the program can progress to the next part of the assessment phase, which will examine the detailed specifications of the vessel.
With a displacement of around 5,400 tonnes, the T26 GCS will be around 148m in length (the equivalent of around 15 double-decker buses), and among the most advanced vessels in the Royal Navy's fleet.
The T26 GCS is expected to feature: vertical missile silos capable of housing a range of different weapons; a medium-calibre gun; hangar to accommodate a Merlin or Wildcat helicopter, and a flexible mission space for unmanned air, surface and underwater vehicles, or additional boats and the most advanced sensors available to the fleet.
The T26 GCS is one of several projects, including the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, which will see UK shipbuilding provide world class equipment for the Royal Navy.
The Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff, said that the Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be “the backbone of the Royal Navy for decades to come. It is designed to be adaptable and easily upgraded, reacting to threats as they change”.
“I am delighted the program has been endorsed by the investment approvals committee. The build of these vessels will secure thousands of skilled jobs across the UK, helping to sustain an industrial surface warship capability”.
”The T26 GCS will be a multi-mission warship designed for joint and multinational operations across the full spectrum of warfare, including complex combat operations, maritime security operations such as counter-piracy, as well as humanitarian and disaster relief work around the world”, said the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope. He added the T26 GCS will be capable of operating independently for significant periods or as part of a task group and will play a major role in the defence of the UK for many years.
Suggested Stories
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 24th 2013
Toilet paper shortage is because ‘Venezuelans are eating more’ argues the government
-
May 24th 2013
British Overseas Territories tax havens hold £ 4 trillion, claims Oxfam
-
May 24th 2013
As the US before IMF lines up behind Argentina in the litigation with hedge funds
77 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
It'll be interesting to see it in 8 years time.
It looks like it should be able to submerge too like a Bond villain’s boat would do.
I know all the bellicose ones will give me a 1000 reasons why I am wrong on this but, as an engineer, the small gun on this boat and the T45 would bother me – over reliance on missiles. In case of failure of the missle launchers, I would want a couple of big guns just in case.
Belt n’ braces.
Guzz, do you have Argentine permission to be talking on here, we all know your not allowed to do anything unless your overlords say so. Take a good long look at the picture of that beautiful warship, now deal with the reality that your controlled country will NEVER possess anything like it. One because the Argentines won't let you and two because you will never afford it.......:-)
“and a flexible mission space for unmanned air, surface and underwater vehicles”
Shall I tell you what that small sentence means Guzz, it has space for an unmanned air vehicle, i.e Taranis. Not so much an issue for you in Uruguay, but might concern casa rosada.
Brits are in South America to stay, get used to it.
If I am still here it will be interesting to see their sea trials.
The type 45's accelerated from a standing start faster than any large ship I had seen and seemed to turn on a sixpence.
#2
I hear what you say but the gun is large enough for the job.
If a larger gun were fitted then it could damage the hull/superstructure with the recoil. These ships are greyhounds and built for speed.
Armour is practically useless against modern missiles with shaped charge warheads.
Can you open them? And there are more troops inside? My son will be thrilled, although he might miss the point of an unmanned plan. But I don't, I hear you, Britworker, good point ;)
Yeah I agree but I believe that the Navy is still studying a design to up the gun from 4.5 inches to 6.1. It is believed that it may be fitted onto the T45 and possibly the T26. But thats about all I know.
Here's an image of the prototype/Design:
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm
Just for everyone's information, the image below the top one is what the finished product will look like. The image at the top of the page is rather outdated and the new design features a much more impressive weapons load out than before.
For further reference:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Ship
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS401_Perseus
Its very impressive Conor, all designed and built in the UK. Proud to be British.
Oh yes most definitely, I have looked around through the records and this ship once in service will not only be the most powerful anti-land/ship and sub, that the Royal Navy has operated but will be far more capable than the vast majority of other Ships of equivalent design and of a larger size. In terms of missiles it only carries 10 or so less overall than an Arleigh Burke destroyer. And I'm especially pleased that they have re-added the two Phalanx CIWS onto the design, meaning that all major RN ships now have them. As the Falklands war proved, ships with out Close in weapons systems are incredibly vulnerable.
Ha ha ha definitely, well mind you a Type 26 wouldn't have to launch a Sea Ceptor at Mach 3 to destroy it as the Pampa would most likely crash into the ocean as a result of its crappy design.
Miss!! Any way you wouldn't wont to play “Battleship” with a Type 26 as a single Perseus missile wouldn't just end the game, but it would end you, your family and everything else within 100 metres, not to mention causing great damage to many things beyond that.
whats the best argtards come up with Pampas, i tremble with fear!
@14 If thats how argentina practise for wars! no wonder your sh1t.
@4 i disagree, Argentina will possess something like these beauties but in about 100 years time when we sell them to the Argtards for scrap, after we have have dessimated their navy once again they will buy our obselete junk for us to dessimate again. it never gets old, and the argtards will fall for it all over again,
because they are argentine and as Thick as Fook
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06cNv55jTs
Your posts as always have the ring of desperation to them, but this time a detect a hint of envy too.
Britain has been in recession before. The one in the late 70's early 80's was far worse, and yet somehow we survived, and we did so without defaulting on our sovereign debt.
At the same time that was happening, your country of Argentina had over 600% inflation, and your military government decide to waste the lives of 1000 young men in a desperate attempt to distract your populace.
Of course, Argentina's inflation isn't nearly as high these days. Only approaching 40%. And of course, you still owe the international community billions of dollars when you defaulted in 2002. Oh and your government owes vast sums of money to the provinces, and everyone is constantly going on strike. But never mind, I'm sure the 'dear leaders' economic model will put everything right.
In all your rings and hints, the meaning of my posts might have eluded you. I mean what I type, not what your ears ring or your nose hints...
Type 26 Rocks, nice looking ship. HMS Dauntless looks great at the moment defending British Territory from the Argtard Imperialists.
No Mr Marcos here's the real video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjn9SFNksY4
We can only dream of these vessels but in the meantime, we will have to put up with the inferior type 45 and type 26 !!!
The mention of submarines does leave me open to Guz posting a picture of Astute grounded on sand bar, I usually respond with a picture of the mauled hulk of the Sante Fe...
Good for you! But I think the Argies gave up on that whole idea of nuclear conversion when they realised that they lack the skills and money to finance such a stupid and unethical project.
But like Clyde15 points out, its all about missiles now, even more so than it was in 82. Its very difficult to stop something travelling at over 1000 ft per second hitting a ship, which would sway me toward smaller ships but more of them.
Very true, but what type of vessel would you use today for an opposed amphibious assault that requires a floating artillery battery?
A battleship? Oh bollocks we scrapped our last Dreadnought, Vanguard in 1960. Shit! Mind you although I agree bigger artillery is a good thing but for smaller ships like Frigates and Corvettes, a smaller gun can dish out more rounds at a faster rate then a larger calibre weapon. But still I do hope that that prototype 6.1 inch/155mm gun gets fitted onto the T45's/26's
I was just trying to work out what the differences are between Destroyers, Cruisers and Frigates. There are a few different opinions on this I found, browsing the web. But they are more relevant to the US navy. Below is a description from a US magazine.
'FRIGATES
Frigates fulfill a protection of shipping
(POS) mission as anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment
groups and merchant convoys.
DESTROYERS
Destroyers and guided-missile
destroyers operate in support of carrier and
expeditionary strike groups, surface action
groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform
anti-submarine warfare duty while guidedmissile destroyers are multi-mission
[anti-air warfare (AAW), anti-submarine
CRUISERS
Modern U.S. Navy guided-missile
cruisers perform primarily in a battle force
role. These ships are multi-mission, antiair warfare (AAW), anti-submarine warfare
(ASW), long-range strike and anti-surface
warfare (ASUW) surface combatants
capable of supporting carrier and expeditionary strike groups (ESG), amphibious
forces, or of operating independently and
as flagships of surface action groups.'
Can anyone tell me the differences for the Royal Navy please?
In Royal Navy service Frigates and Destroyers are considered equal when operating in the General purpose patrol role however they differ on specific duties the Type 23 and now the Type 26 Frigate are designed for General purpose anti submarine/land and ship duties. While the Type 45 destroyer is specified for General purpose and anti-air warfare. Both the Destroyers and Frigates of the Royal Navy have the same general abilities but they excel in another specific field. Cruisers are no longer operated in RN service and they are being phased out of US service as well. They are much like the Battleship obsolete and uneconomical.
Just as a rough guess, probably something like one of the Point class sealift ships with half a dozen grid square removal systems parked on the deck. You'd probably want to fire them off as a broadside rather than face-on to the target, just so the front one doesn't cook the one behind it too much.
@3 Taking OUR current economy into account, WE're so much better off than you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
@5 You have a son? How?
@8 An “unmanned plan”? Isn't that what CFK has?
@14 Don't you mean the Uruguayan navy has 5 proper ships? Although that is 2 frigates and 3 “boats”. Meanwhile, the UK is actually building 11 vessels for the ROYAL NAVY. 2 supercarriers, 5 submarines, 4 destroyers. That means we're building two Uruguayan navies. And we're skint! Imagine what we could do if we had some money!
@17 We had to come up with something to match with that Corgi toy aircraft you lot were so proud of. Did you notice that a normal size person doesn't need a ladder to get into it? Very important. I think the last time I saw one it was outside the local supermarket. The kids loved it. And only 50 pence for 5 minutes!
@20 And I'll bet you play with them every month when you have your bath!
@25 Nuclear power! As I recall the argie navy asked for the nuclear reactor that was being developed be adapted for naval use in the 80s. That's 30 years! Do you think anyone mentioned that if you get the reactor wrong it burns a hole in the bottom of the boat and falls out? And then the water comes in? Is that a crash dive?
@27 I've just realised that one single load of Perseus missiles in the main strike VLS could remove the entire argie and Uruguayan naval combat capability!
Destroyers are screen ships used to protect capital ships from (originally) torpedo boats, then later submarines and aircraft. Usually they're 30-50% larger in displacement than frigates and their armament has changed with their role over the course of the 20th century.
Cruisers were a bit more of an all-rounder. Bigger and better armed than destroyers, they could operate independantly or in small groups, provide support for battleships or add a bit of muscle to carrier escorts. Aside from the USN, no one actually uses them any more.
That said, the general trend in the Royal Navy is towards bigger ships so this new global combat ship thingy is a frigate that displaces more than our old types of destroyers and the Type 45 destroyer has a displacement on par with some old Light Cruisers.
I think air power is the answer here. A ship off shore is a sitting duck for a missile attack. The Chinese have potent anti-ship missiles and will sell them to anybody - at the right price.
As far as I know the USMC relies on its air wing to knock out enemy positions before assaulting the beaches. Even then, they are more likely to be landed by helicopter or the Osprey than WW2 “hit the beach in landing craft” as per John Wayne.
When the landing grounds have been taken, then the heavy stuff can be landed.
I think I know why they want to buy some of them, they don't trust Argentine and so they want a vessel that has the ability to destroy over half of the Argentine fleet all by its self. 24 Perseus missiles would be more than enough to destroy all of their escorts, and other major ships like tankers and amphibious units.
@37
Anyone who threatens our Nation or its inhabitants, so I guess Argentina is safe then.
It's the worst kept design secret since the launch of the new Mini. They are just telling us all what we already know.
Well, it's news isn't it?
To late mate I already beat you with one of my Perseus missiles. As I said 100+ metres of destruction and damage. Any by the way, why do you come on these articles when all you do is make jokes, I mean what is your interest in the United Kingdoms military might?
Meanwhile, among many ships (frigates or desctructors), nuclear submarines and sewer subarines, planes and missiles coming through my bathrrom's window...real ones or cartoons. Does any of you, brillant guys, have any single idea about a way of solving, in a lasting and reasonable solution, of the FI dispute? Any idea?
No you Argies keeping going on about it. Piss of and concentrate on Argentina and the dispute will be resolved.
@43
Less united? Let me guess Scottish independence? Well as the opinion poles have shown, the majority of Scots don't actually favour independence.Not to mention that the SNP is losing influence. There is no independence movement in England and the Welsh nationalists were crushed at the 2011 assembly elections, and over here in Northern Ireland the situation remains the same as it has been for 60 years, the unionists get 60% of the vote and the nationalists get the other 40%. So really the whole less united thing is rather exaggerated.
“Barely enough to make empty threats?” Well as you should no the British armed forces are vastly superior to any South American nation, heck vastly superior to a great deal of nations and thats just going on training and equipment alone. As for threats, what threats? Name a time when the UK has threatened your beloved Uruguay.
Austerity? Well recession or not the UK has seen the start of a great recovery, inflation has continued to decline rapidly, unemployment just fell again the other day, economic growth is up, the UK industry is starting to grow again, manufacturing has increased etc. And any way a modern military always needs to upgrade to ensure power and safety, the Type 23 frigates are approaching the end of their lives in 10 years or so and there fore require replacement.
I do apologise for my words Mr pgerman as I began by reading someone else's comments but managed to read the end of yours and combine them for some strange reason.
I'm afraid that I have already defeated Mr Guzz at Battleships so thanks but no thanks. But my point still stands as Regards the Falklands: The Argentines needs to go away and concentrate on their own country and leave us British alone.
I was referring in general to the Falkland islanders as they are mistreated and threatened by Argentina on a daily basis. When I say leave alone you know exactly what I mean so don't be naive. All the islanders want to do is to trade and co-operate with Argentina without being threatened with Blockade's, death threats etc. They have the best qualities of life in all of South America life expectancy, GDP per capita etc. And i'm sure that they want to be able to preserve that.
The Malvinistas still dream about killing our fleet. The new ships we are aquiring I'm sure won't be added to their 'kill list'
Yeah I noticed he seems to enjoy making jokes until his bubble inevitably gets burst.
You clearly no nothing about the way this works do you BK? Do you have any idea how many people are involved in the construction, design and maintenance of theses vessels? Tens of thousands that how many. Not to mention that they will operate for about 30-40 years before needing replacement. Oh and considering that you might as well be an Argentine as a result of your treasonous support of their leader who is attempting to make the lives of the islanders a nightmare, you don't really need to worry about the UK do you?
'you troll i give you dollar'
I assumed it was packed with goodies and burgers..but i guess tough economic conditions mean no burgers for Guzz and fake aussie
54 - Keeping a ship building industry alive joey
Nothing gets you out of a recession like a good old conflict.
On the ship, what a lovely sleek grey bringer of death she is, the Andrew will be most happy having her in the fleet.
Make smoke number 1
Like what!? There is no demand for a great deal of our manufacturing produce, Heavy machinery, Cars and military equipment is one of our biggest export markets. Do you really think the government and private investors can click there fingers and make 300,000 people avaliable to “make other stuff?” There is nothing for them to make. And what do you mean by that anyway? Our shipyards employ around 30,000 people, how many of them are qualified to do plumbing and building construction when those markets are stalled up? You really haven't thought it through have you?
Such as ?
If we have a navy, they need ships. What do you suggest, surfboards or canoes ?
Yeah just like everyone country on earth, Uruguay has a navy and they buy vessels to “kill” people, so whats your point hypocrite?
Your reference to “Pacha Mama” is not understood. Explanation please.
Sweden makes Bofors guns, Switzerland Oerlikon guns.
Brazil is purchasing a fleet of submarines plus some frigates.
India and China are building up their fleets.
I could go on and on with this one.
As far as I can see, Argentina is one of the few countries who cannot afford the upgrades.
You are over emphasising the importance of Argentina in British defence policy. You are a nuisance and not much more. We have NATO obligations and defence treaties with many other countries worldwide.
If your country had to fight in a world war, like Britain has had to, you may think that having a capable navy would be a priority.
Define “you lot ” by individual countries please or we will think that you mean the UK only - which you probably do.
The right kind of austerity is cutting back on fixed overheads.
The wrong kind of austerity is cutting back on major capital projects, like infrastructure and nice shiny boats like this.
Conor is right, these kind of projects protect industry and jobs whilst creating assets.
Not to mention the technology that is developed along the way.
61 Guzz
It is stuff to protect the populace with. We buy their second hand frigates, which I am fine with, but I would be much happier if we could build our own.
Brits,
Build your boats. Good on you. I am happy that you have them and not the Argies. If the Argies could build boats like these we wouldn’t have Patagonia or Tierra de Fuego. I like my neighbours for the most part, but history shows that they have a tendency to periodically threaten our territory. They can’t at the moment because we have adequately protected ourselves. In the real world a strong deterrent reduces conflict.
I seem to recall your corned beef plant at fray bentos killed a few people
I try not seperate “you lot” and “us lot” by borders or skin colours, it is all what you believe in. Ideological belief, religion I don't care about. As a result, Condorito and redpoll are “you lot”, and BK and TheMan is “us lot”.
I wont impose this way of expression on anyone, but at least now ypu know what I mean.
Pacha Mama is your Mother Earth
65
You do? Great news mate, no amnesia yet! Keep eating those serials
If the islanders are suffering harassment like you stated, why don't you send such information to your UK PM David Cameron to stop diplomatic relations with my country Argentina? ....
all the facts of Argentine bullying and harrassment are documented, and the UK has not countered these with any bans on Argentine shipping etc. It's the difference between the broken hulk of a country that is Argentina, shamed and humiliated by the loss of the Falklands war. et over it stop using the Falklands lie to cover up your failing economy and corrupt president
Well, I was expecting to receive the answer from Conor Louden-Brown, the man that speaks very well english without making any spelling mistake...
In any event, this argie believes, that, after so many insults made by the Penguin News, and the UK team, these insults cannot be taken back.
Even your UK PM accepted the fact the relations including the harrasment is not healthy for the islanders....so I believe that is time to stop the diplomatic relations...the sooner, the better.
Didn't Chamberlain say something similar about Hitler? Say as it is, you can't afford a diplomatic meltdown with SA atm...
Or coulde it be Argentina is more mature at least in this respect, and does not waste money in military gadgets like Brazil, India, China, the USA, Russia, the UK, and all the rest do, when you can't afford it? (no you can't afford it because you are cutting basic social services at home left and right and still are heavily borrowing, and your economies are shrinking). I looked at Spain's armed forces and was shocked, what do they need so many modern ships for?
In Latin America Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, even Ecuador and others also waste on defense.
So no, Argentina “can't afford” is partially correct. None of you can afford it either, but being the morons that you all are, you gloat of shiny ships while your children go with worse education, less healthcare, and less safety in the streets.
If you think that makes me admire you, you are not correct. It makes me both feel sorry for you and gag from disgust at the priorities your societies display.
The reason I couldn't reply Miss Susana Brown was because I was away in Newcastle on a four day hiking trip with Friends. but Mr Clyde has kindly replied in a way in which I would have. Thank you Mr Clyde.
Argentine more mature ?----like a ripe smelly cheese !
(cheap comment but you walked into it )
The main duty of a government is the safety and protection of its citizens.
We could not afford the armaments we bought and built between 1938/1945 but neither could we afford not to have them.
The same could be said in the period of the cold war
If you look at the UK's armed forces, they have shrunk drastically.
The RAF has lost many Squadrons of aircraft and now have next to no maritime recconnaisance capability.
The Army has had more cuts in its personnel.
The R. Navy needs new ships as the older ones are wearing out and would need expensive refits.
It would be wonderful if we did not need armed forces but history has taught us otherwise. We did not expect to fight a war with Argentina but
your country thought we were weak and decided to chance their luck.
Thank you for that timely reminder on the need to watch our back. !
By the way, from what peace loving society do you come from ?
My reply was to #72 - not myself ! However I do get sensible replies when I do this.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!