And NZ has history with Australia with the ANZAC. History does not necessarily result in continuing relationship. It will come down to what is required and how it is to be maintained.
The latter could be interesting.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
The latter could be interesting.
Belesarius
New Member
If we go with a full MK41 loadout, that would be pretty flexible. I wonder how many Mk41 cells we could cram in there. I also like the idea of Mk41 as it gives a chance at giving Canada a credible BMD defense at least on the coasts. If the radar we mount is capable enough anyway. From what I've read about the SeaCeptor, it seems to be a pretty interesting system. I hope they stick with the Mk45 and don't go with anything smaller.
Overall I think the Type 26 looks to be a solid backbone for the Canadian fleet moving forward. I hope we end up with 15 of them, but suspect that 12 or fewer are in the cards. :/
Surely $60 billion should get you 15 top end frigates.
Canada will no doubt want to develop its own version of the Type 26 but to my eyes the Hunter class would seem to be pretty close to what they would want.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It’s not really $60 billion, more like $35-40 billion for the actual ships with the remaining money being used for associated program costs. Still, this is well over $2 billion per ship so this should be top end.
Main differences are: SeaRAM (CSC) vice CIWS (Hunter), CMS330 (CSC) vice Saab 9LV Aegis (Hunter), EASR (CSC) vice CEAFAR2 (Hunter), Canadian developed Ultra Electronics towed array sonar (CSC) vice Thales 2087 (Hunter), enlarged hangar (CSC) vice standard size hangar (Hunter), to accommodate the larger CH148 helicopter, mk 46 torpedo (CSC) vice MU90 (Hunter), SeaSpider anti-torpedo system (CSC) vice ?? (Hunter), 40 cell mk41 VLS (CSC) vice 32 cell (Hunter) - Note: this may only apply to the first 3 ships, which are going to assume the AWD role previously undertaken by the Iroquois class destroyers. The model shown at CANSEC had 32 cells, and may be more representative of the GP frigates, which comprise the last 12 ships of this class. There are other differences when you look at the various models, but I think that sums up the most obvious ones.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would assume the RCN brass would be interested in CEC but it may be a hard political sell. Pollies here would likely see it as a surrender of sovereignty if foreign commanders could launch weapons from a RCN ship. Also, the associated IP issues would be problematic which is why non-ITAR kit has been selected when practical.
Yes, CEC is definitely high on the RCN's wish list. In fact, a few of the posters on some of the Canadian forums believe the flat panels below each EASR panel are CEC planar array antennas, so it may already be baked into the design.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Where does it say anywhere that the navy is still seeking separate AAW dedicated ships as replacements for the scrapped Tribals?
By all accounts that I have read all fifteen ships will be the same. Missle load out may be different depending on tasking but given the rule of threes and the limited number of hulls available spread over the thirty year build we are unlikely to see a GP and an AAW version.
By all accounts that I have read all fifteen ships will be the same. Missle load out may be different depending on tasking but given the rule of threes and the limited number of hulls available spread over the thirty year build we are unlikely to see a GP and an AAW version.
Novascotiaboy, this is my reference for the two-variants: http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/Vol12num3/Vol12num3art8.pdf
You will note that the article references a "common hull and machinery" for both variants. This may be where the misconception arises that all 15 ships will be identically configured.
Belesarius
New Member
Main differences are: SeaRAM (CSC) vice CIWS (Hunter), CMS330 (CSC) vice Saab 9LV Aegis (Hunter), EASR (CSC) vice CEAFAR2 (Hunter), Canadian developed Ultra Electronics towed array sonar (CSC) vice Thales 2087 (Hunter), enlarged hangar (CSC) vice standard size hangar (Hunter), to accommodate the larger CH148 helicopter, type 54 torpedo (CSC) vice MU90 (Hunter), SeaSpider anti-torpedo system (CSC) vice ?? (Hunter), 40 cell mk41 VLS (CSC) vice 32 cell (Hunter) - Note: this may only apply to the first 3 ships, which are going to assume the AWD role previously undertaken by the Iroquois class destroyers. The model shown at CANSEC had 32 cells, and may be more representative of the GP frigates, which comprise the last 12 ships of this class. There are other differences when you look at the various models, but I think that sums up the most obvious ones.
Do you have a link to an article that gives the various loadouts proposed? If so, I would love to read it.
Perhaps two separate classes might have been required if Canada selected one of the other candidates but the type 26 is a pretty hefty ship. I think combining AAW and ASW in a single hull is a better option for medium-sized navies such as Canada and Australia. CEC would also be a huge force multiplier ... surely that must be included.
Why? The Canadians may see CEC differently to what the Australians and the US do. Don't forget it is the govt of Canada paying the bill not the Commonwealth of Australia, and as we all know our Canadian cousins have their own unique way of doing things.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Calculus
A single sentence of a two page article taken out of context. In the very next paragraph this same article goes on to state that if the hull size is big enough all capabilities could be supported. The T26 more than meets the ability and was likely the example the author was using as the preferred hull.
A single sentence of a two page article taken out of context. In the very next paragraph this same article goes on to state that if the hull size is big enough all capabilities could be supported. The T26 more than meets the ability and was likely the example the author was using as the preferred hull.
The Navy's own guidance document, Leadmark 2050, strongly suggests there will be two variants. Read from the second last sentence on page 48: http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf
"The CSC project will be the largest and most complex shipbuilding activity undertaken in Canada since the end of the Second World War. It will initially deliver the flagship and air defence capabilities of the RCN’s Iroquois-class destroyers and ultimately replace the general-purpose capabilities of the modernized frigates."
Agreed. There is plenty of information (misinformation?) that would support either conclusion. Why I still think they will have an AWD variant is I can't see how the RCN could justify the cost of having the command and control functions applied across all 15 ships.
Hi Belesarius, no, I haven't seen anything "official" on loadouts, but I think it would be safe to assume that the AWD variant (or the vessels tasked with the AWD role if it turns out to be a one-variant build) would deploy with a mostly SM-2 loadout, with a smaller amount of ESSM for self-protection, whereas the GP vessels would be mostly ESSM (likely block 2). But that is just my guess, based on the current (Halifax) and past (Tribal) mix of weapons. The only thing we know for sure is these vessels will have mk41, so in theory any missile supported by that launch system could be deployed aboard CSC.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Leadmark 2050 does not mention CEC by name but on page 54 some of its concepts are alluded to. It is rather disappointing that no LHDs are mentioned as a future capability. Their usefulness for HADR alone make them worthy for consideration. The dark cloud in all this is the appalling level of public and private debt in Canada along with government mismanagement (junior's campaign comment, "the budget will take care of itself" comes to mind). Provincial governments aren't much better. I fear 15 CSC ships is optimistic. If junior thinks buying used Hornets is a good idea, can used ships be an even better one in his mind?
Belesarius
New Member
The Brit variant has a few Mk41 cells. It also has the SeaCeptor. Do you think it likely that we'll use the SeaCeptor as well, or swap out the space used for those for more Mk41 cells? The VLS is pretty flaexible, so that gives us payload upgradability later if needed.
Also, how capable is the radar we're looking at? I'm not much of a radar geek, so how does it compare to say, AEGIS on a Burke?