56 silos of MK 41 can be fitted to a Type 26 global frigate?

All About The British Royal Navy: Past, Present And Future

56 silos of MK 41 can be fitted to a Type 26 global frigate?

Joined: June 15th, 2014, 3:57 am

April 14th, 2018, 4:20 am #1

I was thinking, what is the maximum number of MK 41 silos that can be fitted to a Type 26 global frigate?

The RAN proposal has (hard up against the front of the bridge) 8 across the beam x 4 rows fwd. = 32 Mk 41 silos total all strike length?

The RN –Type 26 is going to have (hard up against the front of the bridge) 12 across the beam x 2 rows fwd. = 24 Mk41 silos total all strike length.

Just forward of these silos on RN ships are smaller 24 single sea ceptor silos spread out over about the same area as the 24 Mk41’s.

Therefore can one assume the existing 24 single sea ceptor silos could be replaced with 16 Mk41 strike length silos plus
One 3-cell ExLS system outboard port and starboard, = 24 sea ceptors.

This configuration could replace the existing 24 single sea ceptor silos spread over an identical area just aft of the stack.
The 16 Mk 41 would have to be tactical silos if they would fit as the mission bay is below.

Just my thoughts I realize there are weight and freeboard considerations etc.

I would appreciate any feedback.

Jonesbry.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 7th, 2016, 12:00 pm

April 14th, 2018, 7:25 am #2

Why do you want so many cells when there's nothing yet confirmed to fill them? 
Quote
Like
Share

Haz
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 12:28 am

April 14th, 2018, 2:27 pm #3

Tactical length Mk 41 would still split the mission bay into two much smaller mission bays.  It would have a huge negative impact on the design.
Type 26 is maxed out at 32 cells.
Quote
Like
Share

Haz
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 12:28 am

April 14th, 2018, 2:37 pm #4

On second look, it would cut off the front of the mission bay.  So not as drastic an impact, but it would still make the mission bay much less flexible.  For example, you would no longer be able to carry an 11 m RHIB in the bay.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2010, 3:48 pm

April 15th, 2018, 9:18 am #5

Haz wrote: Tactical length Mk 41 would still split the mission bay into two much smaller mission bays.  It would have a huge negative impact on the design.
Type 26 is maxed out at 32 cells.
I think you have it wrong. He’s referring to the 24 Sea Ceptor launchers forward of the 24 Mk41 cells, which are themselves forward of the bridge.

Given that the proposals for both the Australian and Canadian navies sport 2 rows of Mk41s 8-cell launchers, and looking at the area available forward of the bridge, I’d guess the design maxes out at 6x8-cell MK41s, for a total of 48 cells. Since the RAN also wants it MK41s to be Strike length, the second row can also be so. Therefore, I’d say 48 Strike length MK41 VLS cells is the answer to the question...

Cheers
J
Quote
Like
Share

Haz
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 12:28 am

April 15th, 2018, 12:53 pm #6

John M wrote:
Haz wrote: Tactical length Mk 41 would still split the mission bay into two much smaller mission bays.  It would have a huge negative impact on the design.
Type 26 is maxed out at 32 cells.
I think you have it wrong. He’s referring to the 24 Sea Ceptor launchers forward of the 24 Mk41 cells, which are themselves forward of the bridge.

Given that the proposals for both the Australian and Canadian navies sport 2 rows of Mk41s 8-cell launchers, and looking at the area available forward of the bridge, I’d guess the design maxes out at 6x8-cell MK41s, for a total of 48 cells. Since the RAN also wants it MK41s to be Strike length, the second row can also be so. Therefore, I’d say 48 Strike length MK41 VLS cells is the answer to the question...

Cheers
J
I believe he was referring to both locations.  In the front, the designs for the canadian and Australian variants indicate that 32 cells is the most it will take.  There may be space, but my guess is the design can't take the weight in that location.  To put any in the aft location interferes with the mission bay.  32 cells it is.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2014, 3:57 am

April 15th, 2018, 11:56 pm #7

Haz wrote:
John M wrote:
Haz wrote: Tactical length Mk 41 would still split the mission bay into two much smaller mission bays.  It would have a huge negative impact on the design.
Type 26 is maxed out at 32 cells.
I think you have it wrong. He’s referring to the 24 Sea Ceptor launchers forward of the 24 Mk41 cells, which are themselves forward of the bridge.

Given that the proposals for both the Australian and Canadian navies sport 2 rows of Mk41s 8-cell launchers, and looking at the area available forward of the bridge, I’d guess the design maxes out at 6x8-cell MK41s, for a total of 48 cells. Since the RAN also wants it MK41s to be Strike length, the second row can also be so. Therefore, I’d say 48 Strike length MK41 VLS cells is the answer to the question...

Cheers
J
I believe he was referring to both locations.  In the front, the designs for the canadian and Australian variants indicate that 32 cells is the most it will take.  There may be space, but my guess is the design can't take the weight in that location.  To put any in the aft location interferes with the mission bay.  32 cells it is.
Looking at the comparisons below, given the available space, extra 2.2m beam & greater volume of the hull over the Hobart class I would say the Type 26 could take the loadings of 48 Mk 41 silo tubes with ease.
 
Type:  Hobart class Air warfare destroyer.
Displacement:   7,000 tonnes (6,900 long tons; 7,700 short tons) full load
Length: 147.2 metres (483 ft)
Beam:   18.6 metres (61 ft) maximum
Draught:  5.17 metres (17.0 ft)
Armament  fwd, of bridge: 48-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type: Type 26 frigate or City-class
Displacement:   6,900 t (6,800 long tons; 7,600 short tons ) 8,000+ t full load.
Length: 149.9 m (492 ft)
Beam:   20.8 m (68 ft)
Draught: ?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2010, 3:48 pm

April 16th, 2018, 11:17 am #8

Haz wrote:
John M wrote:
Haz wrote: Tactical length Mk 41 would still split the mission bay into two much smaller mission bays.  It would have a huge negative impact on the design.
Type 26 is maxed out at 32 cells.
I think you have it wrong. He’s referring to the 24 Sea Ceptor launchers forward of the 24 Mk41 cells, which are themselves forward of the bridge.

Given that the proposals for both the Australian and Canadian navies sport 2 rows of Mk41s 8-cell launchers, and looking at the area available forward of the bridge, I’d guess the design maxes out at 6x8-cell MK41s, for a total of 48 cells. Since the RAN also wants it MK41s to be Strike length, the second row can also be so. Therefore, I’d say 48 Strike length MK41 VLS cells is the answer to the question...

Cheers
J
I believe he was referring to both locations.  In the front, the designs for the canadian and Australian variants indicate that 32 cells is the most it will take.  There may be space, but my guess is the design can't take the weight in that location.  To put any in the aft location interferes with the mission bay.  32 cells it is.
You may be quite right on the weight issue, but do we know if the 32 cells in the Canadian and Australian designs in fact correspond to the maximum load? Did the Canadians and the Australians ever specify max load or only a specific number of cells in their designs? Honest question...

Cheers
J
Quote
Like
Share

Haz
Joined: March 15th, 2016, 12:28 am

April 16th, 2018, 7:49 pm #9

My best guess is that to fit more than 32 up forward you would have to drop the cells by one deck. Whether it is possible even then would depend a lot on the weight balance and layout of the individual design. It would certainly not be a sure bet. You might have to go with a smaller main gun.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 16th, 2015, 9:17 pm

April 16th, 2018, 11:10 pm #10

The original assumption that several Mk 41 could be installed in place of the forward CAMM cells seems to ignore the considerable extra length of the Mk 41.

And what's the point? The T26 will carry CAMM so why fit Mk 41 at twice the depth needed for CAMM and leave the bottom half or more of each Mk 41 cell empty? Let alone have all the hot gas exhausting structure that will never be used.

Peculiar question.
Quote
Like
Share