>https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-type-26-frigate-wins-norwegian-frigate-competition/>Norway has selected BAE Systems’ Type 26 design as the basis for its future frigate programme, a decision that will shape the Royal Norwegian Navy for decades to comeSo after reviewing the FDI, Type 26, Constellation and F127 for the last couple of years (and all the industry cooperation&politics involved), the Norwegian Government has chosen the Type 26 as Norway's new ASW-frigate to replace the Nansen-class starting around 2030. Its still undecided if there will be 5 or 6 ships, but the cost agreement is in the area of £10 billion. Including the other contracts, that should boost the total number of Type 26 frigates to a possible 35 ships. No information on the class having supertanker avoidance systems tho
why are ships called "types" in china and britain?this isn't c++.
>>64196921euros and asians are typical, while USA ships have class
>>64196708Excellent, I'll drink to that.
Will they have barcodes?
>>64196708Interesting, is it because both are outside the EU?
>>64196708Pretty good desu, 5 full ships exported, good deal.
>>64197103they both have the same task within NATO, keep the Iceland gap closed. so it is logical that they would have the same requirements and thus the same ship.the also do a lot of joined operations with the RN so having the same whip would be a major boon for both of them.as for the other options the US would never get their boats in the water in timethe Germans aren't competitive with their offeringthe French do have a competitive boat and could start delivering them in time if needed by delivering one being build for the French navy. so the choice was really between the boat of the guys you are going to be using your boats with, the Type 26. or the boats from the guys you aren't going to be using your boats with, the FREMM
Based. NSM for everybody
>>64196708FDI lacked the ASW focus.F127... is a theoretical product.And Type 26, was just right.This is fantastic news for BAE. 5-6 orders is enough work to speed up the delivery schedule for the UK.
>>64197103Probably more to do with Norway being pissed off with the French and Germans over the NH90 fiasco.Meanwhile Brits are buying NSM from Norway, will be using the same boats to hunt for subs in the North Sea oil fields with Sjøforsvaret, and this year will be doing trials with AW101 which Norway operates for SAR. So there's a clear sign the ship will be built to do things Norway want it to do.Type 26 will also be certified for MH-60R in the next 5 years, since Australia are getting a ship based on the same design.
>>64197520RN are also looking at Kongsberg C2 Vanguard's design for the MHC/OPV replacement, so there's like for like.
>>64196708Thank god it's not the FDI. Look at this ugly monster. Even the Mogami with it's donger radar isn't this ugly.Constellation class or F127 aren't even a product yet. So this seems like a good and easy choice.
who wants to bet the deal will be subcontracted to foreign yards
>>64197578Norwegian yards will get to fabricate some blocks and sub contract for short lead items, probably, but the integration will be UK.
>>64196708I've heard that British ship designs are under-armed for their weight class. Is that assertion bullshit?
>>64197578Whats more interesting is the maintenance and support facilities. By the looks of it, BAE will have dock capability in Norway through the local yards, which will help for through-life support.
>>64197598Currently, yes. The fleet is still recovering from the Iraq and Afgan funding priorities.But there's a major programme of new and upgrades weapons. The current fleet is being up armed, and going forward -- having more.>NSM>FC/ASW>(FASGW(H))>Martlet>Block 1 ASTER 30>CAMM (MR)*>Virginia Payload Module*being developed
>>64197601It will probably form part of Atlantic Bastion.
>>64197574It has its charms. Looks kinda like a pre-dreadnought cruiser.
>>64197598Yes, but this has also been a problem for Germany and Australia.
>>64198035You could maybe make a case the Hobarts could do with 64 VLS cells, but eh, 48 is fine for primarily AAW; that’s like 24 SM2s, 32 ESSM, 8 SM6s and 8 TLAMs.For Germany, that’s also a role-specific thing, but it isn’t a first rate “fighting” class. They’re colonial cruisers. Trade protection from pirates and self-protection from Yemen.
>>64197598No it's not, but the RN is slowly up-arming its ships. Type 26 will have sufficient armaments and options to up-arm. But, with its main purpose being ASW there's no need for heavyweight AD missiles.
>>64198119picrel is a Type 45 having a VLS upgrade with Sea Ceptor, increasing cell count to 72 I believe.
>>64198119Yeah the AD capability is one of the things people are criticising the selection on, and its actually seen as a downgrade in some areas compared to the Aegis on the current Nansen. But a Norwegian frigate will almost always be part of a larger task force while doing ASW, and thus under the AD of a Type 45/Burke.
>>64197520Norwegian Air Force are also yet to decide on what helicopter they will buy as a proper ASW replacement for NH-90. The MH-60Rs will be for the Coast Guard in an ISR and VBSS role currently.Type 26 will mean they're fine whether they choose to buy more MH-60Rs or AW101s for ASW, and de-risks the whole situation.
>>64199326They’re trialing AW101 in the UK carrier group. I’d say it’s got a good chance.
>>64199514Strange that they've only started now, the Merlin is quite old
>>64199245They could always try to go for the australian version, but the whole reasoning has been to get as close to the UK spec as possible so i doubt it
>>64196708From the thumbnail I thought they stacked it on a couple of packs of Marlboro reds
>>64200080They wasted decades on NH-90. It's back to square one now.The Royal Navy's HM.2 mission fit for Merlin is only 10 years old, and is earmarked for a new radar to keep it in service until 2040. There's also the cheaper Polish-spec ASW configuration that entered service there last year.The alternative, MH-60R is now older both in terms of the mission fit and airframe design, but was an attractive, risk-free solution until Trump took office.Both are excellent ASW helicopters though and by the time the frigates are ready, Norway will have experience operating both in other roles.
>>64200553Polish camos are sexy.
>>64200720Just fire.
>>64200720>>64200735>fish
>>64200985It's a joke.
Lets hope they go for 6 and not just 5 ships
>>64196708If their women stopped beaching them they wouldn't need replacing
>>64202044?
>>64198119Norwegian air force also has like 52 f35 A's and with the extensive coastline + Svalbard + access to UK and Danish/Faroe territory, I would imagine that any action by norwegian ships would be both defensive and have plenty of air cover from nearby bases. It helps that the threat is well established (Russia) so they can tailor their capabilities for that specifically and min/max appropriately.It's not like either the Russian navy or air force are particularly scary right now. They can't get air superiority over Ukraine, let alone an arctic or north sea space buzzing with various Nordic + UK stealth aircraft. Those spaces are thoroughly controlled by NATO, and are quite far for Russia's third world logistics to really keep up. A Baltic fight would be easier for Russia logistically, but would likewise be very in NATO's favor given it truly is a NATO lake now. The most dangerous scenario is Nordics vs Russia without NATO support. It's still an easy air and naval fight, but the vast spaces involved will require maximum independence for all ships and planes and i agree AD is a big priority.
>>64197574>straight bow with that profileshe's gonna dive straight into rough sea better than a fucking submarine. i don't know why the french have this fascination over flamboyantly retarded designs.
>>64196708Needs lots of sticky out bangy bits.
>>64197598it was historically the case for many classes of british warships throughout ww1 and 2, because they did the math wrong when scaling preexisting designs and as a result several armamaents had to be removed for the sake of bouyancy. hunt class comes to mind
>>64202135>many classes of british warships throughout ww1 and 2, because they did the math wrongbullshit, that only happened with the Hunts
>>64196921Because if you have a class of ships instead of of Type you are reach back to your own history as something to be proud of.For Europeans their history is viewed as bad in their eyes so they don't want to have any nationalistic vibes with their new shipsFor Asia it's because they are Asian and that the west usually just labels them as "Type X" because its easier than writing out "Dragonstrongmanturboflowerkiller of year 1995"
>>64202122There's some footage of her on sea trials where even in a fairly calm sea state there's water going over the bow when she's at speedhttps://youtu.be/YMt2pzURRlI?feature=shared&t=548Really can't imagine it's a design suited to the North Sea and Norwegian Sea
>>64202328Holly shit, that "asymmetric warfare center" looks like fucking ass.Do you think they regret the bow?
>>64202314>For Europeans their history is viewed as bad in their eyes so they don't want to have any nationalistic vibes with their new shipsAnon are you actually retarded? The Brits only hand out original ship names relatively rarely and instead pass on names from historical ships. Some RN warships have battle honors going back hundreds of years (Warspite can be traced back to the 1600s, for example).While the Burgers don't reuse ship names as often as the Bongs do, I'd imagine that they do the same thing too since the US inherited many RN traditions (albeit with their own spin).
>>64202314They have a class name. The Type 26 is the City-class frigate, with each ship named for a British city.The parallel Type 31 being built is "Inspiration-class" specifically because they're using names from historic Royal Navy ships that inspire the modern Navy's ethos."Type" is just assigned as the project name to identify different types of shipshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_NavyNot all assigned "Type" numbers get past the design stage.
>>64197598Its is and it isn't.They do tend to have a bit less in armaments but that is offset by the fact they tend to have much more range which in a number of cases translates to having twice the range of rivals. Their flight decks also tend to be much more generous for aviation than others to the point you could potentially support and squeeze two Chinook sized helicopters on them where as most other nation designs would struggle to accommodate one if they could even do that.There's one thing that I have heard through grape vine but not so certain how true it is but there is no hot bunking on modern RN ships with crew accommodations supposedly being relatively spacious. If true that's a huge point in their favor.
>>64202429it's not rangeit's>accommodationsthe major Euro navy ships devote approximately 30% more space/mass per crewmember compared to the US Navy
