John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Perhaps the RCN doesn’t roundup numbers to a single decimal which is why our beam is 0.05 meters less.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
I agree. Is the CSC weight full load or light ship weight, or some average based on a typical mission profile?
Hearing you mention additional length at the stern prompted a thought about stern flaps/stern wedges. (Maybe a silly thought, but I'll throw it out there anyways, lol)
I'm not sure that they even actually added any length to the Halifax Class frigates, and admittedly, I haven't noticed any indications that the CSC will have them, but their addition, however unlikely, might be a simple reason for the slight increase in length.
Perhaps more likely that the CSC specifications are more up-to-date and accurate?. BAE told Janes that only 10% difference between T26 and CSC, and that is found in sensors, combat systems and weapons (incl masts and antennae).
I find it v hard to believe the hull of the three variants is not common.
Also, long or short tons. T26 variously listed at 7,600 short tons light
When you compare the fit out of the CSC and T26 variants and factor in commonality in hull, plant, hotel systems etc it's hard to imagine that their displacement differs substantially
Great find. It looks like accommodations are down slightly to 204 in the CSC compared to 208 in the Type 26. Presumably they lost a cabin or two due to the depth of the extra Mk 41 VLS compared to the forward Sea Ceptor tubes.
It's interesting since they are so explicit with the manufacturer and model of other weapon systems that the Main Gun is just generically a "127mm" gun. In particular, a 127mm gun often refers to the Oto 127/64 LW whereas a 5" gun refers to the BAE Mk 45. It's not just a matter of being a metric country since even the British MOD says their Type 26 has a "5-inch gun". At the very least, the generic 127mm gun description suggests they haven't finalized the choice of main gun yet. The Oto 127/64 LW has a faster rate of fire, higher upper elevation, faster training/elevation velocity and acceleration, and more ready rounds at the cost of increased weight and decreased lower elevation. Keeping commonality with the Type 26 and Hunter-class along with the US weighs heavily in favour of keeping the Mk 45 though.
In regards to the Tomahawk, the upcoming Block V Tomahawk comes in several forms, including the regular land attack Block V, the anti-ship Block Va, and the hard-target penetrating Block Vb. Does anyone know if the anti-ship Block Va retains the same land attack capabilities as the regular Block V? If so, it'll be interesting to see if the Block Va is acquired for the CSC to give both long-range land and anti-ship capability to supplement the NSM.
The 30mm secondary guns are from BAE which seems to confirm that they'll be 30mm Typhoon rather than the MSI DS30M, meeting my hopes that they'll maximize commonality with the 25mm Mk38 Typhoon on the AOPS.
This also highlights that the pictures/models of the CSC to date, even in the factsheet, are not fully representative of the current specifications. Inaccuracies includes 24 x Mk 41 VLS compared to the confirmed 32, 1 navigation radar compared to the now confirmed 2, and MSI DS30M compared to the BAE 30mm MGS. It leaves hope that the final CSC mast design will include a larger SPY-7 like the F-110 that is mounted higher than in current CSC pictures.
Perhaps the RCN doesn’t roundup numbers to a single decimal which is why our beam is 0.05 meters less.
As John Fedup says, the official beam of the Type 26 is 20.75m without rounding. I would agree with Calculus that if there was an extension, it's most likely the stern was stretched to accommodate the Ultra TLFAS towed array instead of the Thales Sonar 2087.
The Halifax-class mounts 0.5 cal machine guns and soon a Rheimetall MASS decoy launcher on the quarterdeck behind the flight deck and there isn't much room around the line handling areas at the rear of the flight deck on the Type 26 so perhaps the extended stern also allows enlarging the line handling areas or adding a dedicated quarter deck to accommodate weapons or decoy launchers.
The Hunter-class fact sheet lists a 149.9m length and the picture seems to show a stern wedge so either the 149.9m length already includes the stern wedge or the stern wedge doesn't contribute to the length measurement.
I'm not sure anymore. There have been reports in Australian media (Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board) of a potential stretch of the Hunter (as well as displacement increase to around 10,000 tonnes), and BAE has indicated that the base design will "accommodate" lengthening, so maybe there will be some variability between the three different variants. I've also heard that the Aussies are considering a different GT, and sourcing the gear boxes locally. I think if I was a planner for the RAN I'd give serious consideration to running a GE GT for commonality with the AWDs. Australia is justified in wanting as much self-sufficiency as possible, given their geographical and geopolitical constraints, so compressing supply chains makes a lot of sense. In any case, hopefully Canada and the UK will try and maintain a common hull and machinery, and as many other common bits as possible. Considering the close operational relationship between the two navies it would be tremendously beneficial to be able to share parts and training.
Last edited:
It seems to be pretty well thought out, I have to agree.
It's a good tactical decision. Layering your defense is pretty smart. I think the effective range for CAMM is 25K, ESSM is 50+K, and SM2 is ~170K. It seems this 3-layer capability has been a fundamental part of the design since very early on, but in early models we saw RAM in place of CAMM. Reputedly, the RCN got some good exposure to the capabilities of Sea Ceptor from the RNZN during the Anzac refits, and was impressed. It also doesn't hurt that this missile is now integrated into CMS330 as a result of the same upgrade. Plus, commonalty with the RN doesn't hurt either. In addition, the RCN will be able to benefit from economies of scale for purchases, training, and maintenance with its two closest allies.
It might be viable if it really is just extending the sternmost compartment for the towed array. Being past the propellers and rudder, presumably there should be no major pipes or machinery in the sternmost compartment and it is largely an empty compartment that houses the towed array which is just being made into a slightly longer compartment. This would be a lot simpler than an extension in the middle of the ship which would impact everything that runs through there.
Well Canada continues to fund ESSM development and has a large stock of ESSM Block I and soon ESSM Block II from the Halifax-class so a lot of it is sunk cost or already committed funding. CAMM is needed vs ESSM because supposedly it has a shorter minimum engagement range. ESSM is faster, has longer range, and has a larger warhead vs CAMM. Yes, CAMM has reportedly exceeded 60 km in trials, but it's likely ESSM exceeds it's 50km quoted range as well. The CSC also insists on a dedicated X-band illumination radar even though upcoming ESSM and SM-2 variants are incorporating active radars in addition to their semi-active radars and data-links while CAMM is active-only radar with data link. That makes me think semi-active radar missiles in combination with a ship's illuminator may still offer some advantages over active radar missiles, perhaps in resistance to electronic countermeasures?
I think that it is fair to say this (working within the shipbuilding industry), that MOST Navies 'tweak' the design of the ships being built, both as they're being designed/built & when in service.
For instance, I remember back in 2005, when I was attending a training course with UK RN personnel, discussing the Type 45 destroyer. I asked the question of an officer, what he thought about the ship & the UK's move away from the European 'Project Horizon' design & how this had effectively spawned the Type 45. His quote was thus:
"IF you gave us a fresh piece of paper today & asked us (the navy), to design the ship we need, it would look NOTHING like what we're getting !"
In 30 years of heavy industry experience, I have heard many similar stories/comments & been involved in many changes/upgrades during the build & testing phases of ship construction.
The reality is that many navies are beginning to realise that there are x2 ways to go - build COMPLEX, multi-purpose warships to do as much of everything that can be done within a set budget, or build SIMPLE (& allegedly CHEAPER) vessels, that can be 'slightly tweaked/upgraded' during refits / replaced with newer designs, in less than 15 years. Type 26 / Hunter / CSC, all fall into the COMPLEX variant.
The GCS design was sold to other nations, on idea of a 'build to print' technology transfer, effectively meaning that what the UK design looked like & possibly the equipment it contained, could be adopted by the other nations buying the design. It is fair to say that the results of this in the intervening time since Type 26 was offered up & Canada & Australia purchased the design, is that while there is 'some commonality', each nation has effectively put 'THEIR STAMP' on the design.
The ability to tweak the design & add some of the nuances for each nation, like trying to integrate equipment / weapons systems / power plants of their own choice, to match current / future fleet designs & requirements, means that each nation will effectively change from the UK 'baseline'.
FYI - THIS IS A GOOD THING !!!!!
Yes, Weights & Lengths may be affected in the process & while many are discussing costs, it is 'CHEAPER' to do this on the drawing board, than it is when you have a steel hull & realise that you need to modify an area of the ship, because a new widget has appeared that the countries government has provided the finance to buy, or that said widget HAS to be fitted as it is an 'operational requirement'.
Having x32 effective hulls based round a single design is no mean feat & discussions around whether 'OPTION A' is better than 'B' when comparing guns / engines / radars, will continue as the information on what is being fitted to each nations variant becomes public domain knowledge.
SA
I didn't even know SM-2 Block IIIC had finished development, I was under the impression it wouldn't be ready for US Navy deployment until 2022, but apparently Canada's getting 100 for $500 million. With 15 ships, of which about a third are in extended readiness/refit, that means ~10 x SM-2 per deployed CSC, although loadouts will of course vary depending on mission. I guess Lockheed Martin was wrong or were deliberately fibbing when they said the CSC will use SM-2 Block IIIB. Given the first CSC won't be in the Navy's hands until the middle of the decade at the earliest it does seem a little early to be buying the SM-2 though.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is supposed to release it's report on the CSC program later this month. I have a suspicion this wave of information on the CSC by the Department of National Defence is a pre-emptive strike to market the CSC in terms of needs and capabilities in the best light before the PBO shifts the focus to the price. Getting details of the Navy's preferred CSC configuration out there could also discourage the government from cutting funding since everyone will be able to see if capabilities are reduced in the future.
I am thinking that specific hulls will not regularly embark with SM-2 and instead, a mix of ESSM and Tomahawk. It mentions in the documents provided above that all ships will have the capability to perform all missions, however, I think it is still likely that specific hulls will specialize in specific tasks during the course of their life with a change in capability if required. That all 32 VLS cells will be strike length also tells me that the RCN has future capabilities in mind and growth potential for weapons in the magazine.
I didn't even know SM-2 Block IIIC had finished development, I was under the impression it wouldn't be ready for US Navy deployment until 2022, but apparently Canada's getting 100 for $500 million. With 15 ships, of which about a third are in extended readiness/refit, that means ~10 x SM-2 per deployed CSC, although loadouts will of course vary depending on mission. I guess Lockheed Martin was wrong or were deliberately fibbing when they said the CSC will use SM-2 Block IIIB. Given the first CSC won't be in the Navy's hands until the middle of the decade at the earliest it does seem a little early to be buying the SM-2 though.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is supposed to release it's report on the CSC program later this month. I have a suspicion this wave of information on the CSC by the Department of National Defence is a pre-emptive strike to market the CSC in terms of needs and capabilities in the best light before the PBO shifts the focus to the price. Getting details of the Navy's preferred CSC configuration out there could also discourage the government from cutting funding since everyone will be able to see if capabilities are reduced in the future.
Why? ESSM is quad packed so for example a load out of 12 cells of ESSM gives you 48 missiles. You are not going to have a load out of 20 Tomahawk missiles in one ship, so maybe the remaining load out could be 12 or 16 SM-2 with the balance being Tomahawk. That's a more logical load out. Let's be honest, the Canadian government isn't going to invest in a large inventory of Tomahawk missiles is it?