Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

I admit I'm being lazy by not googling, but was there any reaction in Canada after the Australian selection of the Type 26 frigate?

I have to say, if Canada chose it, with 3 countries building it, and evolving the design as it gets built ( see the Australian navy thread ), and sharing information, the West could get some genuinely World leading ASW ships out of this, and in large numbers. This is a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to have such widespread collaboration. This is just my opinion... Don't flame me .

76mmGuns said:

I admit I'm being lazy by not googling, but was there any reaction in Canada after the Australian selection of the Type 26 frigate?

I have to say, if Canada chose it, with 3 countries building it, and evolving the design as it gets built ( see the Australian navy thread ), and sharing information, the West could get some genuinely World leading ASW ships out of this, and in large numbers. This is a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to have such widespread collaboration. This is just my opinion... Don't flame me .

Click to expand...

Fear not, it is a reasonable thought. It will really come down to the RFT for the CSC and what they expect out of it from an industry involvement perspective. Some have suggested that the RCN are keen on the T26 but I have found nothing in the media to back this up. If this is the case .... and they actually can influence the decision ... then you may see something in the way of cooperation.

Certainly, theType 26 just got to be a lot less risky a proposition for the Canadians with two separate production lines now being established and virtually two prototype examples being built.

They get to see how two separate weapon and sensor systems are being integrated and with Australia and the UK bearing most of the development costs.

It seems pretty much a win-win situation for Canada.

Unless I am greatly mistaken the last time the UK Australia and Canada built the same class of combatant was during the late 30s mid 40s when we each built Tribal class destroyers. It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass with the Type 26, one can only hope.

I'd love to see a picture of a UK, Australian and Canadian Type 26 variant in the water together. I think the Australian selection is a huge credibility boost for export orders for the class, that much is certain.

Volkodav said:

Unless I am greatly mistaken the last time the UK Australia and Canada built the same class of combatant was during the late 30s mid 40s when we each built Tribal class destroyers. It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass with the Type 26, one can only hope.

Click to expand...

River class frigates during the war was the last build I think Volk, although we all did Type 15 conversions from WW2 destroyers in the 50s, and the St Laurent class had the same machinery and some of the same combat and AIO kit as the T12s.

spoz said:

River class frigates during the war was the last build I think Volk, although we all did Type 15 conversions from WW2 destroyers in the 50s, and the St Laurent class had the same machinery and some of the same combat and AIO kit as the T12s.

Click to expand...

Yes forgot the Canucs built Rivers too. Actually the US built Rivers as well, now there's a precedent.

Would it be the most ironic if the Canadian were to choose the Navantia option? Or would it now really hurt Navantia's pitch that RAN has gone with the Type 26?

Joe Black said:

Would it be the most ironic if the Canadian were to choose the Navantia option? Or would it now really hurt Navantia's pitch that RAN has gone with the Type 26?

Click to expand...

if defence procurement is truly unbiased then the AusGov Sea 5000 should have no impact. it all comes down to each nations individual requirements.

Perhaps not but I can remember the quotation IT pros from years ago used, "nobody gets fired for buying IBM".

Response for the cure bids along with financial information are required tomorrow on the CSC.

Design, systems bids for national shipbuilding strategy due Friday

Things seem to be moving fairly quickly with a decision due before years end.

My track record so far for these selections has been pretty ordinary. I went with the Soryu for SEA1000, The Fassmer bid for the OPV and the F-5000 as Australia's future frigate.

However this time I feel supremely confident that theType 26 will win selection as Canada's new frigate.

Bugger, you may have hexed my preferred choice! Seriously it will be interesting to see if a decision is made this year. I am guessing yes as it will take the pressure off making a fighter decision until after the October 2019 election. The momentum of other T26 decisions can’t hurt its prospects for the CSC.

Hm, although I’m obviously not sure of how the Canadian build would be structured, I wonder if BAE has the resources in skilled people to pull off three different build configurations in three widely separatrd countries simultaneously. Sure corporately the are huge, but even they must have a limited pool of naval architects, shipbuiling design and production engineers, combat system integration types, and the like.

spoz said:

Hm, although I’m obviously not sure of how the Canadian build would be structured, I wonder if BAE has the resources in skilled people to pull off three different build configurations in three widely separatrd countries simultaneously. Sure corporately the are huge, but even they must have a limited pool of naval architects, shipbuiling design and production engineers, combat system integration types, and the like.

Click to expand...

But this is where it gets complicated, Irving will be the Prime so surely the production and integration teams all report to Irving.
Production continuity has the potential to be disrupted IMHO

To complicate things even further the US have thrown their hat into the ring.

Navy Hopes for Commonality – Or at Least Interoperability – With Frigates in Australia, Canada, U.K. - USNI News

It is a pity that the US isn't considering the Type 26 themselves. Imagine the saving involved if these close allies built 50 or 60 ships to more or less the same specs.

hauritz said:

To complicate things even further the US have thrown their hat into the ring.

Navy Hopes for Commonality – Or at Least Interoperability – With Frigates in Australia, Canada, U.K. - USNI News

It is a pity that the US isn't considering the Type 26 themselves. Imagine the saving involved if these close allies built 50 or 60 ships to more or less the same specs.

Click to expand...

I read the USNI article about a week ago too, and the 'headline' is a bit misleading.

Once you get into the article its a different story, the relevant quote to focus on is:

"CAPITOL HILL – The U.S. Navy is in talks with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom in the hopes that all four navies will design and field frigates with common combat systems – or at least interoperable ones – the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for ships told USNI News."

Now even 'if' all nations selected the same basic hull design, for example with the UK and Australia at this stage with the T26 (and possibly Canada), and the US suddenly adding T26 to their Frigate competition, each nation will end up with completely different sensors and differences in weapons and weapons systems too according to their own preferences for weapons and sensors that support their own industries, etc.

Just look at the differences in the UK and Australian configurations, Canada (if T26 is selected), will no doubt be different again.

I can see all four nations using different radar systems, and a variety of CMS, I can't see them all using a 'common' CMS, but I can at least see them all heading towards being 'interoperable' with each other.

To me the solution is having an appropriate 'interface' that can pull all of the CMS data from one nations ships in a format that can be transmitted and received by the other nations ships, and visa versa.

Maybe if each ship is fitted with Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), as the USN has and is also being installed in the Hobart DDGs, that could be the way ahead (and of course you need the appropriate interface between each nations CMS and CEC.

Anyway, just my opinion of course!

Cheers,

ASSAIL said:

But this is where it gets complicated, Irving will be the Prime so surely the production and integration teams all report to Irving.
Production continuity has the potential to be disrupted IMHO

Click to expand...

Yes agreed, but how long since they built a complex warship? If they’ve got any sense and T26 is selected they’ll want to get BAE heavily involved in productionising the design for their yard, particularly those bits which are CA unique.

John Newman said:

To me the solution is having an appropriate 'interface' that can pull all of the CMS data from one nations ships in a format that can be transmitted and received by the other nations ships, and visa versa.

Maybe if each ship is fitted with Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), as the USN has and is also being installed in the Hobart DDGs, that could be the way ahead (and of course you need the appropriate interface between each nations CMS and CEC.

Click to expand...

The Australian ships will be equipped with the Aegis CMS, so adding CEC should not be an issue. Having parallel selection processes for the CMS and hull probably enabled the RAN to side step a lot of the complexities and trade offs that will need to be dealt with by the RCN as they make their assessment.