One thing I failed to mention is that if it is the same radar as fitted to the Aegis Ashore installations in Japan there will be some inherent BMD capability in the system should the RCN require or want the capability.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
One thing I failed to mention is that if it is the same radar as fitted to the Aegis Ashore installations in Japan there will be some inherent BMD capability in the system should the RCN require or want the capability.
Nice catch @Mattshel.
Interesting comments starting at 04:43. Seems to confirm Aegis will be integrated with this new LM derivative of the LRDR for the RCN. Frankly, I am a bit surprised the RCN would go with a different radar than the USN, but this seems to confirm it. My apologies to @Black Jack Shellac for doubting you.
Nice catch @Mattshel.
Interesting comments starting at 04:43. Seems to confirm Aegis will be integrated with this new LM derivative of the LRDR for the RCN. Frankly, I am a bit surprised the RCN would go with a different radar than the USN, but this seems to confirm it. My apologies to @Black Jack Shellac for doubting you.
I was a bit surprised about their radar offering as well, but it is one of Lockheed’s products. This may well all get changed during the process they are going through now, but my thought on the matter is that they wanted more capability than the 3x3x3 EASR provided but did not want to take the jump to the 27 RMA SPY-6. I also see Lockheed offering this radar for SPY-1 replacement on older destroyers and cruisers and being chosen for 2 separate offerings should help their case with the USN, if however, this is not the case I would worry about future improvements from the RCN perspective if they are one of the sole users of the radar. I have read in the past some mention that the RCN wants land attack capability, and the Senate has specifically mentioned Tomahawk missiles in the past, however, if the LRASM can provide 80% the capability of the Tomahawk I would expect to see them, go that route for their land attack needs.
One thing to note as well is that like the Aussie variant I would expect strike length VLS cells (Models have shown 32, however, placement was different than the Aussie variant, looks like with the RCN placement there may be room for another 16 cells, see attached in the photos of models made so far)
Last edited:
You can get a sense of what the RCN is looking for in this document: https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC Costing/CSC_EN.pdf
For missile fit, ESSM, SM-2 MR, Harpoon, Tomahawk, and even SM-6. The models I have seen have a square missile canister for the SSM, so probably not Harpoon, but PBO presumably included it to try and figure out the overall price of this program. The models I have seen at CANSEC and online appear to also have RAM (SeaRAM, in fact). They also show 32 VLS cells. So, pretty impressive capability. If some of the rumours are to be believed, the first 3-4 ships may have additional VLS cells (40 has been suggested), as these first few ships are meant to replace the now retired destroyers. Hopefully now that the design contract has been signed we will start to get some idea what is going into these ships with regards to systems and weapons.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would be quite interested to see how many Mark 41 cells the Type 26 can mount. I think they can fit 48 forward aligned like the CSC, and likely another 16 amidships where the CAMM cells are present on the UK version, 64 cells would be pretty impressive, not sure any Navy would do this and lose some Mission Bay space but none the less it is interesting.
Does anyone have any insight on the propulsion of the RCN/RAN Type 26, I would assume the MT-30 Turbine from Rolls Royce due to them being on the team? I am more interested if anyone has heard if they are going to have to add additional power to hit the speed and power requirements that the RCN has prescribed. Seemingly the Type 26 at 9,000 tonnes seems underpowered with 1 x MT-30 @ 48,000 Horsepower in comparison to something like an Arleigh Burke with over 100,000 horsepower from the Turbines, even the existing Halifax class has 47,500 Horsepower at less than 5,000 Tonnes. I would expect that the hull has space for 2 of the Turbines as the Freedom Class LCS currently houses 2 of them.
Does anyone have any insight on the propulsion of the RCN/RAN Type 26, I would assume the MT-30 Turbine from Rolls Royce due to them being on the team? I am more interested if anyone has heard if they are going to have to add additional power to hit the speed and power requirements that the RCN has prescribed. Seemingly the Type 26 at 9,000 tonnes seems underpowered with 1 x MT-30 @ 48,000 Horsepower in comparison to something like an Arleigh Burke with over 100,000 horsepower from the Turbines, even the existing Halifax class has 47,500 Horsepower at less than 5,000 Tonnes. I would expect that the hull has space for 2 of the Turbines as the Freedom Class LCS currently houses 2 of them.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
That's very Canadian of you. No need though, as I doubt myself daily, and I was only speculating anyways. Thanks Mattshel for finding that video.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It is likely all three variants will have the same CODLOG setup with the MT30 GT for high speed operation and MTU diesels generating electricity for the slow speed electric motors. The MT30 has been rated between 36 and 40 MW or approximately 48-54,000 hp. Most specs I have seen place the T26 at 7,000-8,000 tons. I don't know the waterline length for a T26 but LOA is 149 meters (wiki, sorry) which is 488 feet. Assuming a 450 foot LWL, the maximum hull speed would be 29.7 knots. For 8,000 tons, you need approximately 40,000 hp, for 9,000 tons, 45,000 hp would be required. Hull shaping and the actual LWL will change these numbers somewhat. In any event, the T26 should have enough power to get up to around 30 knots which is where the RCN would like to be.
Unlike the Zumwalt, QE class and T45, IEP was not considered partly due to cost but more likely due to the problems with the T45's propulsion system. Too bad, IEP is the future and has both the diesels and GT generating electricity for electric motors and hotel load.
Unlike the Zumwalt, QE class and T45, IEP was not considered partly due to cost but more likely due to the problems with the T45's propulsion system. Too bad, IEP is the future and has both the diesels and GT generating electricity for electric motors and hotel load.
Last edited:
Very interesting, good to know. I would assume that if more power is needed there should be ample space within the hull. If I am not mistaken Rolls Royce has even developed a repackaged MT-30 to fit into smaller hulls, I believe this variant is being selected for some ROKN KD-II ships moving forward.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Adding another MT30 is very unlikely as the current power is sufficient to get to maximum hull speed for a displacement vessel. Don't think the RCN wants to have their hulls up on a plane, pretty expensive on fuel and uncomfortable on the open ocean. The Freedom class LCS has 2 MT30 GTS driving 4 waterjets. With speeds over 40 knots they are likely planning and the fuel burn would restrict range if maintained for any length of time. No wonder the hulls are cracking and their downtime is significant, at least for the first few ships.
Brochure here: https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media...ine/VCOMB 3258 Marine MT30 website-210119.pdf. As @John Fedup mentioned above, rated at 36 and 40MW.
Noteworthy is the RAN Hunters are advertised to have a speed of 27+ kts, the RN T26 is 26+ kts, and the RCN has a stated requirement to "keep pace with a USN CBG", which is reputedly a sustained 30 kts. Note: The current Halifax class were designed with this in mind, and can hit 35 kts with ease (though not sustained).
Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy
Type 26 Frigate
Agreed. Why bother. Perhaps for redundancy, but even then, shoehorning two gas turbines into the space currently occupied by the MT30 (even if smaller in size), would be a major redesign, and you've got redundancy now with the diesels, even if they don't push you along as fast. Seems unlikely.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think all three will be a hair above or below 30 knots but sustaining this could be problematic. Again, the actual LWL and hull shaping may allow a higher maximum hull speed and even at 9,000 tons, the MT30 has enough power.
I had read something online at some point that when the RN quotes speeds they are usually quoting end of life speeds, hence why most of their ships (QE2 for example) outperform their quoted speeds.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, I recall reading something about lower speeds (why let the opposition know what you are capable of). Hadn't heard about the "end of life speeds" before, interesting way of letting the general public know what a vessel can do.
I would assume if it is an "end of life" speed that it would take into account significant degradation of the many of the propulsion components. HMS Queen Elizabeth was quoted at 25 Knots but hit 29 in her trials so it would not be out of the realm of possibility for the Type 26's to hit 30 if not higher, either way, interoperability with a CBG should be an extremely important factor. My only thought on the matter is that with all the new technologies coming in the next few decades, additional installed power would not be a bad thing, even at the potential expense of some range (Assuming the AOR's are built in the numbers that are required).
On another note, does anyone have any information on the progress of HMCS Harry DeWolf, is the ship still proceeding as expected for commissioning this summer or if there have been any delays? I have not seen anything in the news since the naming ceremony last year, lots of Navy news but not much on the next ship to be put into operation.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I am surprised they did not mate the MT30 with a 40 MW generator and eliminate the clutch and transmission. It would have added weight, but they would then be able to electrically synchronize all the power sources (4 diesels + MT30) if needed for only a small loss in efficiency. It would also give the ship a lot more power for other needs and future proofing, upping the total power output to 4x3000 kW + 40,000 kW or about 52 MW electrical.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
You are describing IEP, great system but it would cost more. It would pay off down the road should railguns and lasers become viable as having a 40 MW gas turbine producing electricity would be nice. It is one justification for a second GT. Perhaps a consideration for ships 8 through 15 if the UK and Australia were interested in sharing development costs. The UK IEP experience with the QE class should be well known 10 years from now.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Haven’t seen much lately but there was a keel laying ceremony in Dec. for the third AOPS,HMCS Max Bernard.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mattshel
Speaking with a couple of contractors who work on the Dewolfe and their comments were that the vessel is behind schedule. There is lots of activity around the dock at Irving with two thirds of the future Margaret Brooke on the hardstand. Still no bow. The Harry Dewolfe still hasnt started sea trials and she has been in the water for over six months. Lets hope they can pull away soon.
Speaking with a couple of contractors who work on the Dewolfe and their comments were that the vessel is behind schedule. There is lots of activity around the dock at Irving with two thirds of the future Margaret Brooke on the hardstand. Still no bow. The Harry Dewolfe still hasnt started sea trials and she has been in the water for over six months. Lets hope they can pull away soon.