Will the type 26's fully replace the Dukes?

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by Debenham, Jan 29, 2016.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just wondering, looked around but didn't find a clear answer.

    When the type 26's are eventually launched in the 2020's, will they actually fully replace the 23's leading to the decommissioning of the 23's or is it planned to keep them going for a while after?

    It would seem a little ridiculous if for our two great aircraft carriers we have just a meager 19 battleships "major surface combatants" to look after them and for that to rise to 27 and then eventually fall again to 14 whilst the light frigates are awaited (Not due until the 2030's from what little I've found).

    Last edited: Jan 29, 2016
  2. Battleships? :confused:
  3. Big grey things (we haven't got any, apart from the Victory, which isn't grey :) )
  4. It's a game , comes in a box full of plastic ships with plastic sea that you plug ships into and ...also available on the net. :rolleyes:
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Fair point, surface combatants sounds a little less impressive right?
  6. Maybe, but there not battleships is the point. You might as well say we have 19 aircraft carriers.
  7. Right,yup,I get that. Accidental use of an archaic term. Can we maybe leave the pedantry behind and address the actual question?
  8. I would hazard that they would totally replace the 23s. The 23s are knocking on now (some of them anyway) and its a slow build for the new class so by the time they come in to service it would probably have just been cheaper to build more 26s than keep the 23s going.

    Im fairly certain that is the case. The answer will be in the latest SDSR
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Debenham, I'm hoping to be helpful rather than pedantic here.

    Battleships were a type of warship which evolved over a lengthy time ( they were originally "line of battle ships" intended to participate in major surface actions where fleets formed lines or columns and manoeuvred to lob large bits of iron at each other.)

    As Wrecker says above. HMS Victory was a battleship, and the type evolved into massive metal fortresses. The Yanks were still the using them in the First Gulf War, albeit upgraded to carry cruise missiles. If someone had reported a battleship at a particular location in that conflict, it might have caused a bit of confusion if the vessel referred to was really an Iraqi patrol boat. It's not necessarily being pedantic to strive for accuracy.

    "Major surface combatants"? I suppose it's a classic bit of modern gobbledegook, a bit like the Army insisting that the Scorpion was a "Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked" rather than the light tank that it really was.

    The Thought Police in MOD might disagree, but I would suggest that the term "warship" - or in the case of Type 23s and Type 26s "major warships" might be more appropriate. "Escorts" used to be bandied around, but that now tends to bring to mind fishnet tights and kinky boots.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. A mine hunter could be a warship, it certainly goes to war. Although major surface combatant is a mouthful it is a very good description to use for an assortment of larger ships.
  11. Well I'll be sure not to make the mistake in the future. I'm not actually in the Navy yet so don't worry I haven't caused any mass tactical confusion of late.

    Let's hope whatever the type 27s (light frigate) turn out to be like make up for the 23s being decommissioned then.
  12. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    T31 is the light frigate is current rumour is accurate.

Share This Page