Jump to content

Talk:Type 26 frigate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

updating

This page needs updating as the future surface combatant program has been restarted and a recent announcement has said that the c1 element of the program is being accelerated. Also defensenews.com reported that the aim was for the c1 element to reach assessment phase by the end of the summer http://www.defensenews.com/sorry.php this link may not work as they have changed the site somewhat recently.Kieranlocke (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Please also note that the current annual report of the MoD (2007-08 page 98) states that FSC is to be sped up. Afcone (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Updating 2010

This article needs to be updated. The programme is now moving ahead and with different timescales involved (for instance C1 variant coming into service first, before the C2). I have done some updating, but need help. David (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverse the Redirection

With the formal confirmation of the FSC now being the Type 26, I would propose that the information on Future Surface Combatant article be transferred to the Type 26 Frigate article and the re-direction be reversed. This would leave it with commonality among shipping articles, where in the future, people will search for "Type 26 Frigate" and not the "Future Surface Combatant" JonEastham (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Type 26 is one of only 3 versions of the FSC. David Biddulph (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - the FSC programme is more than just the Type 26. And there's not much point having an article solely on the Type 26 yet as we know very little information about its design, etc. And we won't know much more than now for many years to come I suspect. David (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Future surface combatant has two variants.

  • C1 (Type 26) -
  • C2 (Type XX) -

The article should stay under its current state, however it is time now to create the Type 26 article.

We should also start thinking about the "Mine Countermeasures, Hydrographic and Patrol Capability programme" which was confirmed as a seperate program by the government in march 2010. [1]. Recon.Army (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Type 26 is not (necessarily) (just) a Frigate

The official sources choose to refer to the Type-26 as a "Combat Ship", rather than a Frigate. It is not for us (Wiki) to presume to clasify it as a Frigate, until they do.

This is not implicit, as the RN classifies ships based on role, rather than size: Destroyer = anti-air warfare. (AAW) Frigate = anti-submarine warfare. (ASW) So, since the C1 is for ASW, that makes it a Frigate: conversely, since the C2 isn't for ASW, it is not a Frigate.

If the type-26 design can be configured, built, or (re)fitted as either the C1 or the C2, then not all of them would be Frigates.

If and when they refer to e.g. a Type-27 for the C2 role, then it would be correct to refer to the Type-26 as a Frigate.

Does that make sense? Mike Wheatley 82.18.135.124 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is called a "Combat Ship" becuase the Type 26 is being designed for exports around the world, as such the government wants it to fill a large scope of naval warfare from multi role frigates with high end ASW for the Royal Navy to anti air destroyers or frigates for other navys. As for the Royal Navy they will be classed as frigates. Recon.Army (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Mike, I know what you're trying to say, but it's not useful IMO. Frigate is a general classification that is generally understood to refer to something like the FREMM/FREDA and F123/F124 families (regardless of function), but "combat ship" is a made-up classification that could refer to anything up to a Kirov, GCS is a programme name rather than a classification. See eg Hansard where Howarth refers to the "global combat ship frigate programme". I think that's a clear example of GCS being used as the name of the programme, and "frigate" being used to describe what sort of programme it is. As an aside, IMO the Wiki article should be moved to Global Combat Ship, FSC is history now. GCS is the name used both by BAE and ministers, and at the moment it looks like the variants will be close enough that a "family" article like FREMM multipurpose frigate will probably be more appropriate than individual articles on Type 26, Type 27 and so on.
As an aside, RN frigates vary in their ASW-ness. General purpose escorts like the Leanders and Tribals were also described thus, so there's no question that the GCS-GP will not be a frigate in RN service. Aside from the RN's typing by function, it's become the general description for NATO mid-sized warships, even AAW vessels like the FREDAs and Sachsens.86.31.67.98 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Move Article (Proposal)

I propose to move this article to another name. Why?;

The Future Surface Combatant (FSC) is a dead program. It has now been split into two separate programs, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS), and the MCM, Hydrographic and Patrol Capability (MHPC) program.

The new name of the article should be named Type 26 Global Combat Ship, Global Combat Ship or BAE Global Combat Ship. BAE systems and the British and Brazilian governments refer to it as the Global Combat Ship. (Brazil is now the first GCS international partner)

Please follow this link to BAEs web site on the GCS: Global Combat Ship

Thank you Alphawulf (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice before, but the discussion above also mentions moving the article.Alphawulf (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Type 26 Global Combat Ship is the most suitable option for name change, as simply Global Combat Ship is not clear/definite enough on the class of ship. Alphawulf (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I went ahead and moved it, so, this article needs changing i guess, to reflect the Future Surface Combatant as being the previous (now dead) programme which was replaced by the Type 26 GCS family of vessels.Alphawulf (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the move as it was a cut and paste move. Woody (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
In terms of where I think the article needs to go, I think Global Combat Ship is the best place as that is the current designation and it is envisaged to be a global programme. In that sense, not all countries will use the Type 26 designation. I don't think there is any need to have two articles, the FSC just needs to be mentioned in the history of the main article as it was part of the development of GCS programme. Woody (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alphawulf, I think if you just waited a little longer for a consensus, things would have been better. Woody makes a good point that the designation of Type 26 is for The Royal Navy, hence the article shouldn't include it. Global Combat Ship is more suitable as its a multinational programme. FSC page should redirect to Global Combat Ship. And yes, copy and paste inst the way to create articles :D Recon.Army (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to note tho, that your article was a step in the right direction and im sure some parts will be used on the new designated page. For example the military ship box on the right? You just need to be shown the ropes eh? Recon.Army (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you had to just delete the Type 26 Global Combat page? It would have been better if you both created the Global Combat Ship page and transferred the information to that page. Then delete the page I created and we could all work on new article and get it right. I agree we should delete this article and include information about the FSC in the history section. Alphawulf (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted as essentially it was an cut and paste move that broke the attribution. It is a condition of the licence that we all contribute under that our edits can be attributed. By copying over that page, you broke the attribution. You are completely welcome to copy over the content from Type 26 Global Combat Ship to this page as it was an improvement on the current info (it can be found here). We need to decide on the title for this page, should it be Type 26 Global Combat Ship or Global Combat Ship then a user can move it across (not copy across) to the new title. Are you happy for the article to be at Global Combat Ship?
All that being said, it doesn't stop you improving this article. What we don't want is to fragment the content across a number of articles when one article will suffice. Does that explain it a bit better? Woody (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did as you say mate. I agree with both of you that Global Combat Ship is better for the articles new name. Thank you. Alphawulf (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Great stuff, looks good. I've moved the article now. Woody (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A step in the right direction for the article. Probably long over due. Good luck both of you. Recon.Army (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with what has happened here. Future Surface Combatant (FSC) was a major UK MoD project. It is now dead, but there is project: Global Combat Ship (GCS). MoD projects are in themselves things of interest, worthy of going in Wikipedia. People will want to be able to look up FSC in 20 years time. They will also want to be able to understand the relationship between MoD projects, some of which may produce hardware.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether GCS will replace Royal Navy's current frigate fleet of 13 with the same number of frigates

I took the liberty of deleting a small section that speculated that the GCS will replace the Royal Navy's current frigate fleet of 13 with the same number of frigates. There is no evidence to suggest this nor any official statements from the British government suggesting that the exact number of GCS ships will total 13.--Woodwose1689 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Possibly a mistake to list single sensors & weapons specs for a multi-mission & multi-nation hull?

The BAE website explains that it will have different sensor and weapon fits (and possibly different engines) depending on the role-based variant, and on the nation. So there will be no single spec of sensors or weapons for the generic design. So that data should be taken out of the table on the top-right, and a set of "variants" should be defined. These would be:
Royal Navy: Anti Submarine variant. (Towed sonar, Merlin)
Royal Navy: Air Defence variant. (None planned)
Royal Navy: General Purpose variant. (Lynx)
Brazillian: ASW. (Currently undefined.)
Brazillian: Air Defence. (Currently undefined)
Brazillian: General Purpose. (Currently undefined)
--Mike Wheatley 82.25.150.93 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Detail on VLS launcher configuration?

I've seen some good graphics that indicate the following VLS configuration:
16 x strike-length VLS right behind the gun.
24 x CAMM launcher right behind the strike-length VLS.
24 x CAMM launcher on the fore side of the hanger structure.
But! can anyone else find a good, ideally written, source to confitm this? --Mike Wheatley 82.25.150.93 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Isnt CAMM to be placed in the 16 cell VLS? I dont think the RN is to use the CAMM launchers.TalkWoe90i 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

how many will the royal navy commission

i am confused at the number of global combat ships the royal navy will build. first the article said 18, then 13, now 16-22. does anyone actually know how many will be built for the uk? i have looked on the royal navy website and cannot find an answer there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.170 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

13 planned at the moment - replacing one-for-one the existing Type 23s. David (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to update (and the article needs updating - and a lot of old stuff cleared out) it looks like 8 ASW variants and (later) 5 GP variants for the Royal Navy. 81.153.232.204 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

GCS does the same as the LCS and costs less

Or at least that's the Lamestream line:

http://www.businessinsider.com/britain-unveils-new-stealth-combat-ship-will-cost-almost-half-the-us-littoral-combat-ship-2012-8 The project shows the stark contrast from the uber-expensive, problem plagued U.S. Littoral Combat Ship. With a price tag of $350, the U.S. LCS is a virtual twin to British GCS, at twice the price.

Actually each GCS variant costs as much as a LCS, is slower, has higher manpower costs and isn't modular. But do we report the lies of RS? Hcobb (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a odd comment to make when the LCS has been slowed by the extra metal required to stop it cracking which has prevented it from getting on to a plane required for its speed, has had its manning significantly increased as there weren't enough people on board to deal with its issues and has had the 'modular' part of the design dropped. Not to mention the massive cost increases incurred on the LCXS project which LM has so far prevented from becoming public until a planned report in 2013.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120702/DEFREG02/307020001/U-S-Navy-Boosting-LCS-Core-Crew-Up-50- http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/another-lcs-shoe-drops.html

Any reference that these ships are connected or share a role / designation should be avoided in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.180.130 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense.Phd8511 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Propulsion system

The article contained a red link to CODLOG, but I've re-directed that to the CODLAG article. The difference between CODLAG and CODLOG isn't much more than a big interlocking switch and clutch, so I believe a link to CODLAG article is appropriate until design is clarified as a link to the latter article gives a good outline of what the drive system will eventually look like, and is much better than a red link for the average reader. I'll tweak the CODLAG article to suit (including the possibility of CODLOG) if I get time. Wikiwayman (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

CODLAG update complete, and CODLOG redirect page created. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

new evidence October 2014

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/defence/141009_SoS_re_Type_26_Global_Combat_Ship.pdf

Phd8511 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

3x8 Mk41 VLS

see http://www.janes.com/article/46719/uk-confirms-mk-41-vls-selection-for-type-26

Phd8511 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Who calls it Global Combat Ship?

Not that I've read in the media, official websites etc. People call it the Type 26 Frigate.

Phd8511 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal Navy webpage calls it the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
So the words Type 26 comes first.Phd8511 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In effect GCS is the international marketing name, T26 is the RN name. So GCS was prominent when they had hopes of significant international orders, but T26 is increasingly the WP:COMMONNAME. In the UK at least, it is still called a frigate because the RN types ships by function and T26 is primarily an ASW vessel, even though by international standards it displaces more than many destroyers and is going to end up displacing not much less than a Tico cruiser. I suggest that since Type 26 Global Combat Ship now seems to be its official name (eg here), we go with that for now, but if it enters production without any non-UK orders then I suggest we use the British WP:COMMONNAME which will be Type 26 frigate.Le Deluge (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

2016 Update: The type 26 has now been down selected to the final 3 contenders for project Sea5000 for the RAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Updates

The Type 26 has now been down selected as 1 of 3 contenders for the RAN's project Sea5000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Combat Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Parliamentary sessison

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/naval-procurement-type-26-and-type-45/oral/35261.html

With news on the Type 26 and the GPFF.

Cantab1985 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

3 Mk45 guns

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160728005348/en/BAE-Systems-Awarded-245-Million-Contract-UK

Cantab1985 (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Combat Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. It appears we have consensus that this name is preferable for the content as we have it. Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Global Combat Ship → Type 26 frigate – No longer referred to as "Global Combat Ship"; this was a catch all term before detailed work, and it is now uniformly known as Type 26 Hammersfan (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Type 26 frigate is surely the UK's (operators) designation? While BAE still uses Global Combat Ship afaik. If this design gets exported, say to Australia or Canada, then I think a Global Combat Ship article should remain as a reference point - with Type 26 frigate (the UK specific) and whatever designations Australia or Canada use all having separate articles. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the move, the recent BBC article referred to the ship purely as a Class 26. As Antiochus says, if it is exported then we can have a catch-all article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that this should be moved to a Type 26 frigate page. Looking at similar articles, such as that for the Type 42 destroyer, it seems appropriate. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi All, appreciate I am a 'new kid on the block' Wiki-wise, and I have been trying to keep the Global Combat Ship page in good shape these past few months. For my two-penny worth, I originally said keep the page as Global Combat Ship, and with the redirect from Type 26. I discussed this with others, and pondered it a lot over the weekend, and have had a change of mind. Change to Type 26 with a redirect from Global Combat Ship. The current page will need a bit of re-wording around current use of Type 26/GCS, but I'm happy to take that on as a project to help keep this page up to what I think is a very good standard. Type 304 (18-8) (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Type 304 (18-8) (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this should stay as it is with the content re-worked to make it clear Type 26 is just a version of the Global Combat Ship. If another country buys it as something different, then maybe consider doing something else but for now, as I opened with, stay as is.Wolpat (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Type 26 Frigate. So far there is only the (planned) eight RN ships. Should other foreign sales materialize, then they can still be covered in this article or separate ones as with Rothesay-class frigate or Leander-class frigate respectively .GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Type 26 frigate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought twitter cannot be used as references?

So why use the First Sea Lord's Twitter account as a source for HMS Birmingham and not the MOD's new release, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-set-for-new-birmingham-warship-and-will-keep-amphibious-assault-ships-defence-secretary-announces ?

Sammartinlai (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference. Twitter is generally not a good reference, but as in this case, when it's a tweet by the person mentioned, then it can be used as a primary source. We should obviously be careful that it still fulfils the notability criteria. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.Sammartinlai (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Programme cost

The Australian contract was added by 125.25.149.100 with a reference which says that the deal is worth £20 billion pounds. 125.25.149.100 changed the total cost to £23 billion, but I'm not sure where this came from as the UK portion is worth £8 billion (in 2016). These figures shouldn't be added together as they are from different years, so presumably inflation will have changed the UK figure by now. I split up the cost into the UK and the Australian programme parts separately, but this was reverted by 125.25.149.100, saying "$26 billion dollar Australia or American dollar is worthless than British pound you can't use the same prize. the total program cost is to BAE system revenue". @125.25.149.100: could you explain what you meant and where you got the £23 billion total cost from? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: I reverted that laat edit, to the GBP amount in the first ref and AUD amount in the second ref. I'm not sure where he got that £23B amount from. BTW, you can't ping IP users. FYI - wolf 07:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks wolf Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Quad-packing CAMM missiles

I know CAMM missiles can be quad-packed in Mk 41 launchers and Sylver A50 launchers (the type the Type 45 uses for Aster missiles), but can CAMM missiles be quad-packed in their own launchers? Also is there a difference between the Sea Ceptor cells used on some of the Type 23s (called GWS.26) and the Sea Ceptor launchers proposed for the Type 26? Also, is there a name for the proposed Type 26 Sea Ceptor cells/launchers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of the Sea Ceptor launchers?

Considering that Sea Ceptor CAMM missiles can be quad-packed in Mk 41 launchers, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the Sea Ceptor launchers completely on the Type 26s and fit more Mk 41 launchers? Also it would make sense to use ADL launchers since these can be replenished at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.120 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What does DLF stand for?

Re IRVIN-GQ DLF decoys, what does DLF stand for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - remove details of weapon systems from VLS section of sidebar

When the article was previously edited I think it was fair to assume that the Mk41 would have a wide-range of weapons, but due to current budget pressures I think the current text is a little misleading, as we've got no idea if the Type 26 will be sailing with anti-ship missiles. Although I appreciate the main body text is vaguer and simply says that the Mk41 can carry in theory, I think the sidebar is implying something like LRASM will definitely be fitted.

I would suggest simply deleting the text about the theoretical weapons the Mk41 can carry from the sidebar. It's not necessary as the main body describes what it can have and deleting the text will avoid any suggestion anti-ship missiles like LRASM are definitely planned (as opposed to desired). John Smith's (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We could remove where it says LRASM and change it to just say "anti-ship missiles" which is what is said in the sources being quoted.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Good idea, I've done that. John Smith's (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

12-cell VLS

What will the 12-cell VLS be with quad-packed CAMMs for 48 CAMMs that is mentioned in the infobox? I don't think it'll be the Sea Ceptor launcher since I don't think CAMMs can be quad-packed in it, so that only leaves Sylver and Mk41 VLS. I doubt it'll be Sylver since otherwise why isn't the Type 26 fitted with Asters? So that just leaves Mk41 VLS. So effectively the infobox is saying that the Type 26 will have 2 Mk41 launchers, one with 12 cells and one with 24 cells. If my reasoning is correct, then shouldn't the infobox read "12-cell Mk41 VLS for 48 quad-packed CAMM missiles"? (I wrote "CAMM missiles" instead of "Sea Ceptor missiles" because CAMM is the missile, whereas Sea Ceptor is the system) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.59 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Type_26_frigate/Archive_1&oldid=1257967355"