Home » Naval » The UK’s ‘joint strike frigate’

The UK’s ‘joint strike frigate’

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 11:32 am
Posted in Naval

From one perspective, BAE Systems’ planned Type 26 frigate will combine the best of both worlds: If all goes well, it’ll be advanced and ubiquitous like the F-35, and also have the ability to take aboard custom, modular equipment like the littoral combat ship, officials hope. From another perspective, the F-35 and the LCS, with their many challenges, are the last two weapons programs you’d ever want to emulate — especially together in the same ship.

Still, UK defense secretary Liam Fox said this week that there’s widespread interest in the Royal Navy’s planned ‘global combat ship,’ and that he is hoping for many international customers to help keep down the ships’ unit cost — just like the F-35.

Per Reuters’ Adrian Croft:

Britain offered Brazil the chance to become a partner in the project last year and the government has said that several other countries are interested, including Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey.
“There are conversations ongoing at government, Navy and industry level with a number of other potential partners,” a BAE Systems spokeswoman said, without naming them. She said the company hoped to make some formal offers to other countries to participate in the programme this year …
The new type 26s are expected to cost between 250 and 350 million pounds each, according to defence sources.
Fox said he wanted the Type 26 programme to be the “maritime equivalent” of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project “where we build a basic vessel that can be adapted to a range of different uses and at different levels of specification.”

Below you can see a photo from BAE that gives a good perspective on the ships’ LCS inspiration: Just as with Lockheed and Austal’s ships, this Type 26 design includes a stern gate that will enable the ships to deploy small boats, or unmanned systems, or some other kind of naval accessory that hasn’t been dreamed up yet.

Join the Conversation

	muscimol June 8th, 2011 at 12:32 pm The French are already fielding the FREMM, the British are a litle late in this sort of development .… go figure! How many need to be built to have the price <400 k euros?
	BOOMER June 8th, 2011 at 12:43 pm also tells you what everyone else thinks about the LCS and the potential for foreign sales with the UKand other countries showing intrast in going this route and Isreal going with an improved stretch version of the SA’AR5 corvette. Cant say I blame them, the LCS is a joke — FFG size boat with PBR ffirepower.
	momomimamo June 8th, 2011 at 3:34 pm yeah sure, in europe french have advance, GB make just for honor like their aircraft carrier
	Oblat June 8th, 2011 at 4:56 pm I’m sure BAE want the frigate to be just like the F-35. Bloated under-performing and profitable. Fox must really hate the RN
	muscimol June 8th, 2011 at 5:03 pm Argentine will want to pay half a dozen .…they plan re-take some islands back, maybe UK could sell to them :)
	Puckindog 01 June 8th, 2011 at 5:51 pm Just what the FUCK We need another fucking 19knt afterburning Target. There has not been a ship sunk by another ship since WWII or WWI depending on how you review the data. Hell lets build more.
	Joe June 8th, 2011 at 6:08 pm Many new-design frigate/corvettes out there are going to have some level of “mission bay” or modular feature. When ships are expected to last 50 years, but electronics etc. are obsolete in 10, there’s no other way. Especially with the unmanned revolution bearing down. Unlike the LCS, it looks like the Type 26s will actually be armed for combat. Though the Brits have done some dumb things before (vid. Type 45 destroyers), so nothing’s certain before the design is final. The real question with mission bays is of size and capacity. LCS bays are just large enough to disarm the ships, not large enough to fulfill full “unmanned mothership” or “brown water base” roles. Most other designs are going to do mission bays in a much smaller way (vid. Type 26, Ivar Huitfeldt class), or step up a size level to produce small destroyer size ships with frigate armament and decent bay space (vid. Danish Absalon class), rather than a frigate size ship armed like a Coast Guard cutter (vid. LCS).
	Tritium June 9th, 2011 at 12:58 am Well, in that case, let’s just disband the USN, and moth-ball all the fleets. You heard it hear first folks. Not only is STEALTH DEAD (according to our esteemed Puckindog01), but since no ship has sunk another ship since WWII, according to Puckingdog01), then the entire surface fleet is, by implication, ineffectual and obsolete. By the way, Puckingdog01, you really should do a little more research on your history…have you ever heard of a little conflict called the Falklands War? How about the loss of the U.S.S Pueblo incident? Not to mention the recent sinking of Somali pirate skiff by the USS Nicholas (FFG-47) frigate. And I am sure I am missing many, many other ship to ship military engagements (and sinkings), post WWII.
	muscimol June 9th, 2011 at 1:34 am Actually, the Brits need the F26 to protect the Type 45 against subs.
	jemc50 June 9th, 2011 at 1:49 am Since President Obama has put the U.S. in the position of backing Argentina and Venezuela in the Falklands issue, Britain will probably need these ships against Argentina in the next Falklands War. Britain has no intent of ever giving up the Falklands, and the inhabitants of the Falklands are glad for it.
	Oblat June 9th, 2011 at 6:03 am Hilarious — no ship to ship combat in the Falklands War and the next best is the sinking of a USN ship by an ally ? How about all those ships towed out to see and scuttled — should we count them too ?
	Oblat June 9th, 2011 at 6:07 am You’d think the entire RN job was to defend the Falklands. And yet Britain will eventually hand over the Falklands just as they handed over HK.
	asdf June 9th, 2011 at 11:24 am hehe exactly
	jemc50 June 9th, 2011 at 4:49 pm Hope your incorrect in your assessment of Britain handing the Falklands over like Hong Kong. Hong Kong was passed to China based upon a treaty provision. Hopefully, the British people will remember that Margaret Thatcher said that the Falklands are British and always would remain British. The current Argentinian push may be due to the possibility of there being oil under the Falklands.
	PolicyWonk June 10th, 2011 at 10:29 am Lets hope they remember to ARM it better than the LCS :-P
	asdf June 10th, 2011 at 10:44 am what argentinian push? haven’t they been making claims that the falks are their since they lost the war?
	asdf June 10th, 2011 at 10:45 am Since President Obama has put the U.S. in the position of backing Argentina and Venezuela in the Falklands issue provide proof
	jemc50 June 10th, 2011 at 12:17 pm http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/10…
	M245JM June 10th, 2011 at 1:32 pm http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.… this is the official version that the telegraph blog refers to. All the member states, including the USA support Argentina in their claims on the Falklands.
	Repulse June 10th, 2011 at 2:19 pm Then all member states are stupid. It would be like supporting the return of Texas to Mexico… In fact the falklands have British for longer.
	bigRick June 10th, 2011 at 2:58 pm Here are the specs for the Type 26 frigate ( a POWERFUL warship just like the type 45) -“fitted for” but not installed 120mm gun -“fitted for” but not installed SeaRam -“fitted for” but not installed VLS for (20) ESSM –lots of assorted hand guns and bottles of 10 yr old Scotch –a stateroom (with a private bathtub) for each member of the crew –steam room –hot tub –full exercise room with Nautilus equipment –50″ flat screen TV installed in every stateroom –full arcade with all of your favorites, PacMan, pinball machines, etc –Wardroom –Chief’s wardroom –1st class wardroom –2nd class wardroom –3rd class wardroom –seaman wardroom -“fitted for” but not installed helo -“fitted for” but not installed sonar -“fitted for” but not installed radar -“fitted for” and installed 200 bottle wine cellar
	Joe88 June 10th, 2011 at 7:17 pm WTF. T45’s will be getting Phalanx 1b this year to coincide with their entry into complete Operational Capability. That’s nearly 2 years for first of class from manufacture completion to full entry into fleet. That’s the first of class for a high tech, innovative, world class, billion quid tech vessel. That’s completely acceptable! The RN ships in the Med now have been FITTED for this war-like deployment. Missile companies fluffed us with Sea Viper: there were manufacturing defaults and development issues with Sea Viper and the Aster missiles. Yes we don’t have Arleigh Burke monsters but else does.…? Yes I concede that it would seem to everyone including me that the RN needs more strike capability, air power and small frigates.
	bigRick June 10th, 2011 at 7:33 pm Not to pick on my UK brethren but, the UK got lucky that they didn’t have to actually use the type 45 warSHIP in the first two years eh? Because a floating hotel doesn’t do much but, make you feel good. Why don’t they build a complete WARship and then send it off to duty? Doing what the UK does is like sending the boys off the the ‘Stan without quality ammo AND rifles. It doesn’t matter how high tech their kit is or how much they spent on it-you need weapons.
	Joe88 June 10th, 2011 at 10:54 pm Thank you for your respect there. I appreciate it and feel bad for my profanity. We do things differently in the UK and Europe. We (UK) have to because things have always been different for us. What we get and want with equipment is very different to the US. We gave up on Naval strike years many years ago, and thank you for giving us sub-launched TLAM tomahawks, that’s been an invaluable weapon system capability. Do you know that the whole US DoD Rn’D budget is the same if not more than the UK’s defence budget? Our budget is tiny compared to yours, we stretch ourselves and always will. Unfortunately our politicians forget and neglect this all the time and pour procurement money down the drain. With regards to our Navy, we place at least a little bit more priority in our budget for Amphibious capability, than the DoD does. And have to do with fewer classes of vessels. The Type 23 is an awesome frigate, type 42 was good but indeed underaremd, but it’s main purpose of existence for it’s patrols and deployments was area surveillance and air defence, which it excelled in, not of course compared to the same age Ticonderogas. Ok with regards to the shipbuilding and reaching the complete operational milestone of a completely new design of warship: It was and is expected that the first of class of a new completely new and modern design of warship, will always have problems. The vessel has to be learnt has to be understood, has to have the Navy design how they will operate the ship. They will evaluate every system. Etc. The Type 45 uses full independent electric propulsion, that’s more expensive and innovative than what San Antonio LPD situation is. That class is quite similar but less high tech compared to the Type 45 and it has been experiencing a lot of teething problems. It hasn’t actually had a real USN deployment yet but it’s first of class is quite a bit older than the Type 45 first of class. Yes UK soldiers have historically been under-equipped when they arrive in any theatre. But this is not that bad, our soldiers morale copes with this, and it’s the calibre of British Army soldiering that is real strength. The US Defense Industrial base is so prominent politically and physically in the US. So much time, money and effort is dedicated and results to maintain your enormous strength, your exertion of real “we want you to do this” Power over other countries. The UK has always been between a rock and a hard place with our military, especially with the US defense industry political might contributing to the demise of the once very diverse and large UK defence industrial base. I would like to cite the enormous bribes paid by the F111 Aardvark manuafactures to secure it’s purchase in favour of the slightly superior and innovative BAC TSR2, which helped contribute to the cancellation of that project and a slight demise of the company behind it. The big Avro Interceptor model (I forget the name) befell US bribery fuelled competition, which largely caused the complete demise of Avro, which had produced world-beating and innovative aerospace projects and services. Sorry but it swings and roundabouts, so the US dominates the world miliatrilly because it engineered the situation to be that way. They shouldn’t complain to the extent they do about how much they contribute militarilly internationally, and of the inferiority of it’s Allies militaries.
	Joe88 June 10th, 2011 at 10:55 pm Sorry I didn’t properly finish sorting out that last comment.
	alan June 11th, 2011 at 8:48 am a message for Joe. You said Brits have done some dumb things. I am from the UK and all I have to say to you is, Why the hell can’t everybody else see how dumb the British are!!!!! We are an absolute joke and a nation of has beens! Military spending should be greatly increased and foreign aid stopped! We are an island nation that takes very high amount of trade via shipping. This needs to be protected. In port last year, one of our Type 45s was stuck because it had a computer virus. World most advanced warship, fails by using Windows for warships!
	henry June 11th, 2011 at 6:52 pm “Yes UK soldiers have historically been under-equipped when they arrive in any theatre. But this is not that bad, our soldiers morale copes with this, and it’s the calibre of British Army soldiering that is real strength.” Rubbish. It’s butchery. It’s avoidable. It’s complacent. It murders the poor kids who enlist so that wealthy subhumans from the elite families can use the military for its real purpose, furthering their careers and lining their pockets. We don’t get what we want in the UK because of corruption and pork barrel politics, not because of budgets.
	RickRock June 14th, 2011 at 3:38 pm Well, in truth, if I must be honest: we do. Same as we see how the french are a joke. Heck, everybody sees that, but you Brits (and of course the French) seem to enjoy pretending you are still A –list, and keep pumping that propaganda on the BBC and France24..I guess it makes your citizens feel good or something, and it’s no skin off our backs, so what the heck…;)
	Harvey June 21st, 2011 at 1:40 am Couldn’t agree more. If the UK increased its military spending to the same % GDP as America spends, we could have a proper navy that is nearly half the size the American navy in every category(if we devote most of the additional funding to the RN). The government is disorganised and does not look far enough into the future when it comes to the defence reviews. If the government made sure that it had existing designs for every kind of ship at all times the unit costs would be much lower. Foreign aid goes mostly to india, and should be stopped. India has enough money to build nuclear weapons and maintain the 4th(or something like that) largest armed forces in the world.
	Faeton June 21st, 2011 at 12:11 pm You have to end colonialism. The Malvinas are Argentine … Historical, political and geographic. There Argentinians and Chileans living in the islands (with British nationality). Just as Islanders Kelpers or change his nationality. Alexander Betts’s family since 1982, Soledad Rende 1984 and last week James Peck desided DONE Argentinos. Despite being in peaceful relations with the Confederation of Argentina, on January 3, 1833 the British evacuated the garrison of 26 soldiers and Argentina established a military garrison. Argetina civilians and governor were expelled. Since then, the islands have been under British rule, except during the brief period of the Falklands War in 1982. The Falklans or Malvinas Argentinas again be one day. USA even imagine being a British colony.
	david June 27th, 2011 at 1:48 pm whenever the LCS gets its surface to surface missile system working it will be a great ship, unitl then its jsut a glorified coastguard cutter with almost no offensive firepower.
	James June 29th, 2011 at 9:21 am The Turkish Navy has developed the MILGEM class (Corvette/Light frigate) and is developing the TF-2000 class frigate/destroyer and hence it has no requirement for joining the “Joint Strike Frigate” program.
	Andrew July 5th, 2011 at 5:04 pm Which set of islands are you referring to. I am guessing some dispute with some other South American country.
	Andrew July 5th, 2011 at 5:09 pm What about the sinking of North Korean spy boats by the Japanese Coast Guard and surface to surface clashes between the R.O.K.N and the D.P.R.K.N or what the attack by Israeli missile boats on Arab ships? Anyway the British retaking of the Falkland Islands would have been impossible without frigates and destroyers just like the Australian lead efforts on East Timor.
	Andrew July 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm Hang on a moment isn’t the fact that you have Hispanics on the South American continent a first degree example of colonialism? While you are thinking about that one you could also contemplate what exactly happened to the indigenous inhabitants of Argentinia. That’s right wipe the blood and the hypocrisy from you hands and drop that nausiating self-rightous attitude.
	Neil Hutchins October 1st, 2011 at 9:33 am if that is the case why is the general belgrano sat at the bottom of the falklands waters pity we could not criple there aircraft carrier as well oh well the jolly rodger rulz
	bob54 January 2nd, 2012 at 3:33 am thats cus turkey have no money!!!!!!

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

The UK’s ‘joint strike frigate’

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments