Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Great news, now comes the hard part, finalizing the contract (assuming no bid protests) and then the really hard part, deciding when steel will be cut. In any event, good news a selection has been made and IMHO, a correct one.

T26 seems to be night and day compared with other recent UK ship sales. bidding two types of the T23 for the Aus contract seemed a particularly stupid way to do things. Is it gov side allowing a lot more info or contractor knowing bid criteria much better than they used to. First common design between UK/CAN/AUS since Type 12i/M(Whitby, River, St Laurent). I assume this makes it more appealing for NZ. Not sure who else has a significant frigate program starting soon.

More, from the CBC: Lockheed Martin selected as preferred designer for Canada's next generation of warships | CBC News

The US is planning a frigate buy but the T-26 was considered too high-end. NZ might be a candidate for a T-26 but something less capable is probably preferred. This could change if the strategic situation goes south or if the Canadian build is actually going to be 15 ships, Irving might be able to deliver 2-4 aggressively priced T-26s at just the right time for NZ. They could consider Australian T-26s but their program will probably be completed before NZ is ready to proceed.

Great news for the RCN.. This will be a complete game changer for how our Navy has functioned. A true multi mission vessel for the threats we face in the decades to come. A real bow cannon in the 5" gun, small cannon for self protection, complete 360 degree CIWS protection and an array of missle options via the Mk41 VLS plus the flexible mission bay.

Hopefully this was an expected win and the Canadianization process is well underway and we can start cutting steel sooner rather than later.

Took long enough to get to this point. Seven years since the NSP was awarded to Irving.

@Novascotiaboy ...I have read reports stating no steel will be cut until 2023. Hopefully some GTs and diesels get ordered beforehand.

John Fedup said:

The US is planning a frigate buy but the T-26 was considered too high-end. NZ might be a candidate for a T-26 but something less capable is probably preferred. This could change if the strategic situation goes south or if the Canadian build is actually going to be 15 ships, Irving might be able to deliver 2-4 aggressively priced T-26s at just the right time for NZ. They could consider Australian T-26s but their program will probably be completed before NZ is ready to proceed.

Click to expand...

One would also assume the more ordered the lower the price per ship which might help along with a more austere fit which might move it into the right price bracket.

I would like to think that after all the money Canada has put into the national ship building program and the fact Irving will have built a minimum of 6 AOPS followed by the CSC frigates, Irving should be able to make a decent offer to NZ when the ANZAC frigates need to be replaced. With three of the 5eyes going with the T26, NZ should too. As NZ uses the LM CMS it may be an advantage for Canada but there is no reason why Australia couldn’t incorporate it for a NZ build on a few Hunter class versions of the T26s.

harryriedl said:

T26 seems to be night and day compared with other recent UK ship sales. bidding two types of the T23 for the Aus contract seemed a particularly stupid way to do things. Is it gov side allowing a lot more info or contractor knowing bid criteria much better than they used to. First common design between UK/CAN/AUS since Type 12i/M(Whitby, River, St Laurent). I assume this makes it more appealing for NZ. Not sure who else has a significant frigate program starting soon.

Click to expand...

Not sure there is anyone else in the market for a Type 26 size Frigate that can't design their own. Think NZ is more likely to go with a more intermediate sized Frigate like the Type31 or Italian PPA unless things turn really sour.
Either the Type 26 is impressing the hell out of everyone who is involved in these programs or BAE has the greatest Ship Salesman in the World

The obvious selection.

Within a few months the Type 26 has went from what many people thought was an overpriced, overrated warship that even the British didn't seem willing to fully commit to what is now shaping up as one of the most successful ship classes ever built since WW2. There will be three shipyards committed to building around 32 of them and there may yet be more customers for it. I wouldn't completely dismiss NZ as a future customer.

I think by the time NZ make a decision the South Pacific might become something of a playground for the Chinese navy and that might be enough to persuade them to look at a more high-end ship. They would also have three variants from which to choose and three shipyards that may be in direct competition with each other to build those ships.

Actually will be interesting, According to a 2010 NZDR there Anzac's would be replaced around 2030 a time when Australia, Canada and the UK should all be full tilt in production of there Type 26's.

In regards to cost savings well there is no major change in time between ships for Australia and Canada so I don't see that having an effect for either beyond bringing the shipbuilding cost down to a standard level but it wont make one cheaper then the other. Canada has history with the upgrading of NZ's 2 Anzacs they might be able to leverage but Australia also built those 2 ships below cost while giving NZ industry work, Similar could play out again.

vonnoobie said:

Actually will be interesting, According to a 2010 NZDR there Anzac's would be replaced around 2030 a time when Australia, Canada and the UK should all be full tilt in production of there Type 26's.

Click to expand...

Thinking practicalities... So would Australia slip a couple of extra hulls into the production sequence at the cost of delaying the remaining RAN ships? Or would NZ wait to join the line after all the RAN ships? Or would Australia expand the facility to build more ships concurrently (train extra specialised workers) and face sacking them when the line goes back to the continuous build drumbeat after Kiwi1 and Kiwi2?

Of course, there are plenty of other options - like increasing the drumbeat permanently - but I don't think we'll be all that enthusiastic about any that slow down delivery of our ships, or risk the continuous build program stuttering

oldsig

There is one major difference between the RCN T26 and the others, it’s being built by Irving and not BAE Systems.
I think this may place Irving at the rear of the pack if issues arise or support is needed during the build.
We have already experienced the problem of the designer not being the builder in the Australian Hobart build where real problems occurred and depending on how much deviation the Canadianisation of the design produces, it’s a possible speedhump.

Certainly BAE will be supporting Irving somewhat I would imagine. I think the final AOPS builds should indicate how Irving is doing. Also, LM Canada is doing the heavy lifting with regards to integrating all the complex kit.

LM has been integral in the Halifax class design and support. Irving will not be playing second fiddle from a support perspective. This will be a well supported program creating a world class final product. Hopefully over the course of the twenty year build cycle they improve the design as they go allowing for improvements along the way.

The next phase of development should give us a better idea of weapons. Hopefully NASM to replace Harpoon in the SSM role. Standard SM2 missles along with ESSM2 and ASROC. I dont expect Juniors government to allow a tactical SSM such as Tomahawk or its replacement.

Things are starting to come together.

Good to see that a design has finally been selected, and good to hear its based on the Type 26 too.

But ..... I fear this is still the start of a long process and certainly not the end (as Canadian Naval procurement history has shown). Here's the official Canadian Government announcement:

Government of Canada delivers on its commitment to the Navy by announcing next steps in fleet procurement - Canada.ca

Assuming the negotiations go relatively smoothly, it will still be interesting to see how long it will take to actually get to 'cutting steel' stage, and of course how many ships are actually ordered, I still struggle to see that 15 will be built, probably more likely around 12 (just my opinion).

It's interesting to look back at both the AOPS and JSS projects.

AOPS, my understanding was that back in 2007 when the Svalbard class was selected, the plan was for 6-8 ships, but of course it dragged on so now its 5 ships with an option for a 6th, and the first of the AOPS has finally been launched last month (September 2018).

JSS, the very long running JSS project, my understanding was the project was originally announced back in 2004 (originally 2-3 ships, but most likely only two ships now), and finally in June 2013 it was announced that the Berlin-class AOR was selected as the winning design.

And of course not forgetting the massive cost escalation that has been reported since that announcement, but finally it appears that steel has been cut on the first ships this year (2018), will be interesting to see when the first ship is actually delivered?

Anyway, not trying to sound too negative, great to see Type 26 selected, just not going to hold my breath as to how many ships and when steel is likely to be cut!!

Cheers,

John Fedup said:

Certainly BAE will be supporting Irving somewhat I would imagine. I think the final AOPS builds should indicate how Irving is doing. Also, LM Canada is doing the heavy lifting with regards to integrating all the complex kit.

Click to expand...

Simple, BAE has more commercial interest in its own yards, Irving will always come second.
I’m not saying doom is inevitable, simply that, if priorities arise money talks.

ASSAIL said:

There is one major difference between the RCN T26 and the others, it’s being built by Irving and not BAE Systems.
I think this may place Irving at the rear of the pack if issues arise or support is needed during the build.
We have already experienced the problem of the designer not being the builder in the Australian Hobart build where real problems occurred and depending on how much deviation the Canadianisation of the design produces, it’s a possible speedhump.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.

The UK T26 version is being built by the prime, BAE, in their own yard too.

The Australian T26 is also being built by the prime, BAE, with ASC Shipbuilding being under the BAE umbrella during the build process, the yard facilities will be a mix of infrastructure under BAE control and the common user facility.

From what I can gather for the Canadian T26 build, the prime is actually headed by LM (not BAE) and the build is in the hands of Irving, (what could go wrong? He says, ha ha!), and yes you only have to look at the AWD build here in Oz to see what could go wrong.

And on top of all of that we have three completely different versions of T26 too, each nation will have their own radar, sensors, CMS, and a mix of weapons too, again, what could go wrong during the integration process of all of those different systems??

And finally this all still has to proceed smoothly from this point forward, navigating the program through Canadian politicians and public servants, again what could go wrong?

A possible speedhump? More likely a corrugated dirt road in the Oz outback that shakes your car to pieces!!

Cheers,

Wondering too if the CMS they are using would be CombatSS-21 or Aegis Baseline 9? Plus from the CG rendering, it appears that the main radar could be the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR)?

Other than the hull form and propulsion systems and possibly some common components, are there much sharings at all between all 3 variants of the Type 26s?

Joe Black said:

Wondering too if the CMS they are using would be CombatSS-21 or Aegis Baseline 9? Plus from the CG rendering, it appears that the main radar could be the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR)?

Other than the hull form and propulsion systems and possibly some common components, are there much sharings at all between all 3 variants of the Type 26s?

Click to expand...

They are using the Canadian Developed CMS330 I think it was called. They have not announced the main Gun but the BAE MK 45 127/62 which both the UK & Australian versions are getting would have to be a very strong favourite. I think they are more likely to go with the MK 41 VLS for ESSM & Standard Missiles as unlike the other 2 Countries they don't have a specialist AWD and they have long experience with both. They use Harpoons on the Halifax Class so probably stay with them in the short term at least.