It was announced this week in the British House of Commons, that "the original frigate Type 26 will be equipped only with a helicopter and a short-range missile system (plus a medium-caliber cannon and Phalanx CIWS)». This report caused a violent reaction in the British press.; observers sharply criticized, being dissatisfied with the extremely weak armament of the new escort ships of the AUG.
Loses even "Buyanu-M"
Critics include Tom Sharp, retired commander [2nd rank captain], passed in the seas 20 years. He compared the gun stuffing of British ships, including Type 26, with similar warships in the fleets of other countries.
In the table presented by him, ships from different countries are grouped. It evaluates existing and new projects of the Royal Navy. (RN) versus US fleets, France, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, China and Russia. Above are the nine major weapon systems.. Depending on their availability ("Yes / not") ships gain points. As a result, the average value for the country is displayed.
The average score for all fleets is 6 of 9. The US Navy is in the lead with the indicator 7,25, followed by Chinese PLAN, who typed 7 points, and a Dutch frigate of the De Zeven Provinciën class, also took 7 points. Average for the Royal Navy and T26 in particular - 4: "below, than on any other ship and in any other country ", author writes. Even the Russian MRK Buyan-M scored more points.
The battle is bloody. Ability how to withstand protection, so to conduct an attack is crucial and largely depends on the "mass". To use the boxing analogy: if you are half the size of your opponent, you will be beaten
– commander believes.
Reasons for failure
He tried to figure out the reasons, which affected the weak armament of the new frigate:
Of the ships listed in the table, excluding RN 15 of 18 have any torpedo launch systems. The question also arises, why T26 (and T31) are the only ships on the list without surface-to-surface missiles?
Firstly, not enough money, although recently the defense budget has been significantly increased [WB ranked 4th in terms of spending, RF - on the 5th]. Secondly, it has already become a habit to start building ships of new types, despite the immaturity of technology.
Russians place missiles and guns on every meter of their ships, so much so, that they literally bristle with them, and our fleet, it seems, takes a step back.
– points sharpe.
This is due to the unavailability of technical solutions. for example, officials claim, what type of missile defense work 45 continues, “But why was it not completed when the system was put into operation??», the author asks.
Thirdly, mentality has formed, according to which the pennants, deprived of a certain type of weapon, will be covered by ships, possessing them.
However, appear [Field paint] with a poor quality kit [arms], and you will be sent to group B, patrol the waters a couple hundred miles away
– points sharpe.
Fourth, costs are constantly increasing during the procurement process, in connection with which a dilemma arises - or completely abandon the program, or donate its component parts.
I know, that every military industrial complex in the world suffers from this, but, may be, ours is in the ranks of the worst?
– Commander writes, indicating for example, that British ships have PU Mark 41 for anti-ship missiles and torpedo tubes, but they are empty, since ammunition for them was not purchased.
Calling the resulting project Type a "failure" 26, the author was concerned about the possible fate of the promising British destroyer Type 83:
Index "8" suggests, that these ships will be big enough, to match the cruisers of the past […] There is a danger, that we'll build another billion-pound ship, which is inferior in armament to the 15-year-old Russian corvette
– the commander concludes.