On 28th June, the Canadian Navy formally announced the start of construction work on its River-class destroyers. Here we look at how this design has been developed from the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate.
The programme
The Type 26 was selected as the baseline design for the Canadian Surface Ship (CSC) project back in 2018. The programme is intended to deliver up to 15 ships to replace the 4 already-retired Iroquois-class destroyers and the 12 Halifax-class frigates. Now nearly six years after Type 26 was chosen, first steel has been cut for a Production Test Module (PMT) at the Irving Shipbuilding yard in Halifax. Following the same pathway used by BAE Systems Maritime Australia for the Hunter class, the PMT allows the shipyard to develop its manufacturing processes ahead of cutting steel for the first ship next year.
The CSC will be known as the River-class and classified as guided missile, helicopter-capable destroyers (formal NATO classification DDGH). The RN ASW-focussed Type 26 a classified as frigates (FF), while despite major modifications to provide additional area air defence capability, the Hunters are also classed as frigates. At around 8,000 tonnes full load, these ships are closer to light cruiser-sized warships of the past. The first batch of 3 Candian destroyers will be named HMCS Fraser, HMCS Saint-Laurent and HMCS Mackenzie. The land-based test facility, HMCS Assiniboine, will also be named after a river.
The RCN will not commit to a specific year that HMCS Fraser will enter service, other than “sometime in the 2030s”. If all 15 ships are built, the last one will not be commissioned until the 2050s. Officially the CSC project is budgeted at CAD31 billion but an assessment by the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the cost to be CSD43 billion. Canada’s defence budget is just 1.25% of GDP and is widely accepted as being completely inadequate to support the large number of recapitalisation projects that are needed across its forces.
Canada and Australia have made major changes to the Type 26 baseline design. In broad terms both navies selected the best high-end ASW frigate available as the right solution to their primary requirement. As well as selecting mostly different weapons and combat systems, they both decided to add much greater air defence capability into the platform. The multiple modifications may eventually deliver very fine combatants but inevitably have driven up costs and caused delays. In both nations, armchair critics have tried to blame the rising price tag on the selection of Type 26 and suggested that choosing one of the (smaller) alternatives could have produced a different result.
Design development
In the 5 years or so since the Type 26 was selected for the CSC, there has been considerable work done to refine the design beyond the placeholder design illustrations issued by BAE Systems at the time. Externally the most noticeable differences are the selection of a new medium calibre gun, a different radar mounted on a taller and much-developed main mast together with the repositioning of the Naval Strike Missile launchers. The secondary communication masts have been removed entirely and with their clean look and new gun turret, the River class are arguably the most aesthetically pleasing of the 3 variants.
Most significantly of all, the UK-designed CAMM / Sea Ceptor missile system has been deleted in favour of the more basic RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). Sea Ceptor is a soft-launched missile that would have been housed in Mk 41 cells in separate silos, on the focsle and one behind the funnel. The Lockheed Martin 3-Cell Extensible Launching System (EXLS) would allow the quad-packing of CAMM in each of the 6 cells, giving a total of 48.
This downgrade is probably a cost-saving measure and the silo for 6 Mk 41 cells remains behind the funnel in the recent images issued by the RCN. ESSM has similar capabilities to CAMM making it hard to justify fitting both and it is simpler to go with a weapon family already in Canadian service. RAM is a good point defence weapon and fills the gap between the 30mm guns and ESSM.
British platform, US combat system
The River-class share the British-designed hull form and propulsion of the Type 26 but almost entirely different weapons, sensors and combat system have been selected by the Canadians. At its heart, fighting capability is based on the US AEGIS Combat Management System. In 2021 the US approved a Foreign Military Sale to Canada of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets. These will equip the first 3 destroyers and the land-based test facility. There is no mention in official announcements of LM Canada’s CMS 330, previously slated to equip the CSC, presumably superseded by a purely AEGIS solution.
The SPY-7 is a cutting-edge radar design intended to support future Ballistic Missile Defence capability and is also being purchased by Japan and Spain. This is a sensible future-proof choice for the RCN. The fixed arrays are much lighter than the Australian CEFAR radar which has caused top weight issues with the Hunter, necessitating a 60cm increase in beam and reportedly up to 10% growth in lightship displacement. The selection of SPY-7 will allow the ships to integrate with the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which coordinates continent-wide air surveillance. CEC will also provide seamless integration with USN operations – an important force multiplier that the RN has aspired to in the past but has been unable to fund.
The main missile armament will consist of the well-proven medium-range air defence missile – the Raytheon SM-2 Block IIIC (Canada is buying 100 missiles initially). The Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) Block II missiles are being acquired for the Halifax class frigates and will transition to the River class. The ships will also receive the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile which is rapidly becoming the standard light land attack and anti-ship weapon for many Western navies.
-
-
-
-
BAE Systems CSC model at DSEI 2019 showing 6 x Mk 41 VLS missile silo behind the Funnel. Originally expected to house EXLS for 24 quad-packed Sea Ceptor missiles (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
Lockheed Martin model of CSC at EuroNaval 2022 showing an additional Mk 41 silo on the focsle for Sea Ceptor (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
BAE Systems initial rendering from 2018.
The Rivers will have a new towed array sonar developed by Ultra Electronics in Canada as well as the same S2150 bow-mounted sonar carried by the Type 26. Unlike the RN, the Canadians have selected to fit a Magazine Torpedo Launch System consisting of a twin launcher on each side of the ship, made by the Canadian subsidiary of British company, SEA. Often overlooked is the large the Flexible Mission Space amidships which can be outfitted with all kinds of off-board systems and add significant extra capability to the ship. The FMS is serviced by the overhead Mission Bay Handling System made by Rolls Royce Canada.
The RCN has selected the modern Leonardo 127mm Oto Melara Vulcano gun which is lighter that the Mk 45 Mod 4 carried by the Type 26 and Hunter, as well as having a good range of proven advanced ammunition types available. There is no Phalanx CIWS, but the two Leonardo Lionfish 30/X 30mm stabilised rapid-fire guns are arguably a better option with increased range and hitting power.
Commonality
There is some scepticism that the RCN will receive the planned total of 15 River-class ships that will still be in production in the 2050s. Either way, three navies have now bought into the Type 26 programme and it will likely become the most numerous major combatant type outside of China and the US. The Australian Hunter class has been reduced to 6 ships in favour of buying second-tier frigates ‘off the shelf’ to get cheaper warships to sea more rapidly. This reduction in RAN numbers could be offset as there is a realistic hope that the Norwegian Navy will order 5 largely unmodified Type 26s to be built in the UK.
Despite the very different combat systems, the participating navies will all benefit from a common platform. Pooling operating experience, spares and logistic support should also help reduce through-life costs through economies of scale. The estimated income to the UK economy is in the region of £200M for each Hunter or River class ship built overseas. Besides the design license and BAE Systems involvement, the wider UK supply chain is manufacturing engines, gearboxes, HVAC equipment and many other components common to the platform.
Running behind the UK Type 26 and Australian Hunter projects, the Rivers will benefit from some of the experience gained during their construction. This is especially true for the initial phases as the hull and propulsion systems are the areas with the least modifications between the 3 variants. If there are concerns about the River class programme they stem from the relative weakness of the Canadian warship building industry and the ship’s price tag within a very constrained defence budget.
Overall the River class appears to be a well-balanced design, offering best-in-class ASW performance while adding substantial area air defence capabilities. The platform’s large size and mission bay also allow plenty of scope for future modernisation and embarkation of modular payloads.
Giving a total of 24 Sea ceptors I believe? 4 per cell, 6 cells, 24
And the Focsle Silo picture looks like another 8 cells rather than 6?
Very intresting article though, hope we find out more about the switch to Ram
Ceptors An early option now replaced by quadpack essm/sea sparrow
No Ceptor was a separate acquisition to ESSM, ESSM and SM2 were using the Mk41 vls, Sea ceptor was going to act as their point defense rather than a system like phalanx and was going to be fitted in the exvls behind the funnel.
I’m also not sure there is such a thing as a 6 Cell Mk41, it looks like it still retains the ExLS launcher. the ExLS is capable of fitting the RAM Block 2 but not the ESSM. So either they are retaining the ExLS launcher to hold the RAM’s or it will be deleted in favour of two Mk 144 GML’s.
Yeh was correcting an error in one of the descriptions.
Exls comes in 6 cells, though obvs they may just slap ram turrets on rather than have to test RAM out of exls themselves.
Actually, it comes in 3-cell modules. There were two of those in the design, just aft of the funnel, but it’s unclear if they will be deleted from the design, or left for some future use.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_3_Cell_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
No, stand alone ExLS comes in 3 cells. So 6 is two sets. They do reuse mk41 armoured hatches though, which may be the reason for the wrong description.
Steve obviously types faster than I do.
So the Ceptor VL cells behind funnel will be replaced by ones for the ESSM ( likely an 8 pack)- which could have been launched from forward VL launchers as well.
However they still have 3 types of missiles onboard as the RAM launcher is the 3rd
Is that news because as I understand the Camm vls may just be removed from the design?
“the silo for 6 Mk 41 cells remains behind the funnel in the recent images issued by the RCN.”
They never used Ceptor unique cells in earlier fitouts
They never used the British Camm cells if that’s what you mean but the 6 cells behind the funnel aren’t proper Mk41, they’re shorter and have no exhaust vent so far as I can tell can only launch CAMM
MK41 says NL. Wheres your source for ‘not proper Mk41’
You maybe confused on the ‘insert’ for actual MK41 which is required for Camm. its called ExLS.
They are adapters for Mk41 and 57 according to LM
“The host ExLS was designed to reduce the cost of integrating new missiles and munitions into a ship’s existing VLS. ExLS fits inside a VLS cell and serves as an adapter between the new weapon and the main battery launcher (MK 41 or MK 57).”
I call them not proper because they can only Launch Camm, they’re not your regular 8 cells mk41 with an exhaust vent in the middle. Plus we know there isn’t the length for Mk41 behind the funnel, maybe the Tactical version but that would still be an 8 Cell with exhaust vent unlike the examples of this we’ve seen
They are buying Mk41… now they dont need the additional insert, so its still a standard Mk41. If its not an MK41 it has a different designation
Dont rely on computer generated images for ‘features’.
Why do you think I’m making this up, here’s the Lockheed Martin page on it.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_3_Cell_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
And even if I didn’t have this link, why are you so stubborn that you won’t admit that it can’t launch any other missile without an exhaust vent and therefore will probably be removed.
Your link is just what I linked to and no it doesnt say anything about deleting external exhaust vents.
Its one thing to be an honest mistake but now you are lying
Please just use your eyes and actually look at the model, point to where the exhaust vent is for Exls
There are two versions of ExLS. One version is an insert to mk41, designed for soft launch missiles such as CAMM & CAMM-ER.
The other version is a stand alone 3 cell version. It does not require mk41, however it does use mk41 armoured hatches. It is not an insert. It is fully functional VLS in its own right. It is very lightweight & can only handle small missiles. It has no exhaust vents. You can however fire small hot launch missiles like RAM b2, Nulka etc by tri packing & using the 4th canister as an exhaust. CAMM, being soft launch can quad pack. ESSM is not supported.
It is the standalone ExLS Hugo is refering to & was part of the plan when RCN ordered CAMM from MBDA in 2021. CAMM is now being replaced by mk49 & RAM b2 (which because it is directional, can be reloaded at sea).
Also it’s CAMM-ER that is comparable to ESSM, not CAMM as quoted in article.
Thanks for that useful information- that doesnt rely on computer generated graphics or ships models.
With only his online earnings, a student was able to pay off his entire student loan.
Here’s What He Did………..
Everybody open now………shorturl.at/5meYJ
Google is one of the foremost great companies to work for and they in a few cases contract laborers from distant truant. sp Within the occasion simply have to be work direct with this company and win cash, go to the Google Careers zone and press on the “Work” interface.
In this interface. FOLLOW THIS DOMAIN
I seem to have an impersonator..
I’ll now be Sean D to avoid confusion, but only because you spell your name correctly.
Cheers, always good to encounter someone else who has the correct spelling. Though sadly I’m yet to meet a Sean of the Sean Young variety…
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but the correct spelling is Shawn!!
One Sean is plenty
We don’t want double the troll arguments on here, some people seem to have it in for people called that.
The RCN always build interesting ships.
The St Laurent’s whose design was supervised by Rowland Baker are an interest alternative to the Type 12.
Then the Iroquois’s where they managed to blend an assortment of ‘off the shelf’ systems into a very robust ship design. A ship that carried two Sea Kings when our escorts were mostly still carrying one Wasp!
And the often overlooked Halifax’s a good but less complicated contemporary of T23.
The only feature from the Rivers really I think our T26’s should have which they don’t is the ability to shoot an area air warfare missile with SM-2. The Hunters will be able to do so too.
I think we’re going to get lucky in that regard with CAMM-ER (slightly beyond ESSM capability) and CAMM-MR (SM-2 capability) for T26. Can’t see the RN ignoring them, particularly as the Army are apparently getting CAMM-ER.
Hello you lovely people, i have a couple of questions that i’m pretty sure are easy to answer but i’m having trouble understanding why this is classed as a destroyer and i really can’t seem to work out the total VLS capacity, bit confused by the quad pack thing. Thanks for any nice answers.
Why it’s classed as a destroyer is a little hard to explain, best guess is its one of the best equipped and Largest Canada has ever had so for them appears a destroyer.
Total confirmed VLS is 24 (3 blocks of 8) Mk41 cells. Each cell can take for example 1 SM2 or 4 ESSM, the latter is what quad packing is.
The debate right now is what will act as the point defense weapon, it was originally slated to be 1 block of 6 Exls, quad packed with Sea ceptor for 24 missiles.
Now it may be changed out for an unknown number of turret launchers in the form of RAM (21 Cells, reloadable at sea) or Searam with 11? Cells
I can’t actually remember the Canadian version ever being called a Destroyer though.Not that I’m all over the defence news sites like some are. Is the Australian version called a destroyer ? I’m confused.
Theyve only just names the class (River class) and given its designation, iirc DDGH
For some unexplained reason, Canada decided to call them destroyers, while the larger Australian hunters are called frigates. It seems Canada has decided to fit 2 x mk49 (I think that’s right) RAM launchers, one each side, for a total of 42 RAM b2. These are also reloadable at sea (unlike CAMM). RAM b2 is shorter ranged then CAMM, but is designed around maximising short range performance. CAMM has similar short range performance, but longer range. The Rivers will also be carrying ESSM b2. I also understand there is an integration problem with Aegis, which Canada could get around using its tactical interface (primarily designed around underwater warfare), but doesn’t want to spend the money.
BAE have already come up with various T45 type destroyer options for the Australian Hunter version by utilising the mission bay to add 16, 32 or 64 Mk 41 cells. So a more traditional destroyer is certainly possible, perhaps in a later batch 2 or 3.
With them only making 6 ships now it seems unwise to have some to a heavily modified design and lose the consistent capabilities across the class.
The plan always has been 15. Bought in batches of 3.
Was referring to the Hunter class.
Hugo, I was referring specifically to Canada as that is what the article is about. Canada is supposed to building 15 In likely batches of 3, then 6 & 6. Since the last ship is due in 2050, that’s 25+ years. There will be changes between batches, even if it’s only replacing obsolete items. The River class is somewhat lacking in AAW compared to most destroyers. A class of 9 heavy frigates & 6 more traditional destroyers (all built on the same hull) is what I am suggesting (regardless of the labels applied by RCN). BAE has already looked at this option for Australia’s T26, the basics of which should also be applicable to both RCN & RN, should any of the 3 want to go that way.
As to Australia, it will now be 2 batches of 3 for a total of 6 rather then the original 9, however they are still saying that at the end of the Hunter build, a new destroyer build will start. RAN currently has 3 Hobart class destroyers, which were not due to be replaced til after the original 9, so will there be 3 or 6 destroyers? Will they be a 64 or 96 vls Hunter derivative? BAE were not at all worried about the drop in Hunter numbers. I assume because they think they might be the front runner for the destroyers.
I still think there are better options destroyers but we’ll have to wait for that canadian competition.
I see what you’re saying now about the River class, though my argument would be that if they cannot afford the total of 15 ships they may be left with too few of one or the other.
The 6 Hunters will be followed by a Tier 2 type of frigate – not destroyer- with 11 ships projected ( 3 of which will be built offshore and production transferred to Australia for last 8)
An existing in production design is preferred with little modification and the budget for the 3 is not large ( A$5.5-8.5 billion plus sustainment $1.5 bill over next 10 years) and in service date is 2030
No, tier 2 frigates are to be built at the same time as Hunter but at a different shipyard (Henderson in Western Australia – actually consists of multiple shipyards – Austal (currently building patrol boats / landing craft), Civmec (currently building OPV’S), BAE ( currently doing Anzac frigate upgrades) & ASC (standard submarine maintenance).
Hunter is being built at ASC (South Australia), heavy submarine & future SSN’s are at a nearby but seperate ASC yard. Government policy is that after Hunter, replacement destroyer’s will then commence at the ASC yard. The Hunter numbers have been reduced from 9 to 6, but government has confirmed the destroyer build will still follow on the Hunter build at ASC. Hobart destroyers were expected to be replaced after Hunter no 9. So if you are replacing 3 ships earlier, are you replacing 3 with 3, or 3 with 6? Hobart does not need to be replaced till after Hunter no 9.
Yes, agree with everything you have written. The RCN is on record wanting more VLS, but chose to go with the 24 to get the program moving, as adding more would have required additional design work, and pushed the program out even further. Given the age of the current fleet, there is a certain amount of urgency to getting these ships built, even if the first 3 are less than optimal from a missile capacity perspective. It’s widely reported that these ships will be built in flights (have seen 3, 6, and 6, or 3, 4, 4, and 4), with each flight being substantially different from the previous flight, in order to introduce new capabilities, and stay ahead of obsolescence issues. Hopefully in the next few months the final build contract with Irving is signed, so some of these details can be made official.
Don’t worry about it. Frigate, destroyer, cruiser, the tag doesn’t matter, only what it’s capable of.
Well yes, but I do wonder at the whole thing though.
In Canada they are always referred to as frigates
It’s a destroyer because RCN uses USN terminology to classify its ships. This is they use ‘size’ to distinguish the difference between destroyers and frigates not primary function.
There is no official cut off point. But the Rivers will be 50% larger than the Halifax’s.
Canada uses NATO designations for its ships, not size. Hence DDGH.
This ship is designed to provide RCN Task Group Command and Control functions. AEGIS and the SPY 7 are the core systems which were selected for their AAW functionality, CEC and integration into BMD and NORAD. Those features override a frigate designation in the eyes of the RCN (which would be GP/ASW primary functionality).
That being said, there really isn’t a difference worldwide between frigates and destroyers in a lot of cases as they overlap significantly in capability and tonnage.
The original and follow on River Classes were destroyers so theres a nice historical callback there as well.
Yes. I would say that NATO standards are based up the US hull classification system as is the Canadian hull classification system. And size is a factor in deciding what is what as much as what does what.
That is why this ASW ship at 8000 tons is a destroyer……….
……..and this AAW ship at 6500 tons is a frigate.
Thank you I do know what these ships have in terms of systems etc.
Yes. It is getting rather difficult decide what is what. I think any country letting a ship to go to see without both area AAW and ASW capabilities is asking for trouble.
Interesting Frigate / Destroyer discourse at Navel News.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/will-the-u-s-navy-build-new-cruisers/
Thats so . The extra capability of even ESSM quad packed . plus SM-6 and others along with the USN only SPY-6 means the missile loads arent a problem anymore
The Burkes FLIII are around 10,000 tons anyway- the hull redesign below the waterline has added extra buoyancy for the extra weight- so thats not too different from the old Ticonderogas
Wasn’t the Burke built on the Ticonderogas hull? Same as America was built on the wasp hull and Whitney island and Harpers ferry iirc share a hull as well, US has been reusing its hull designs for years. I’d say a lot of canadas classification has to do with it carrying the staff command and control features for the battle group. Our AB have those on them since they foreseen Ticonderogas getting laid up, I read somewhere that’s whyUS classified AB as a destroyer and not a frigate. U could argue years ago that it was also due to weapons availability and multi role capabilities but now even frigates carry both the later. Then oddly u have European countries that have flagships that fall under these same guidelines yet they still call them frigates so I guess it’s whatever floats ur boat so to say lol.
No the AB has a different hull.
The Tico’s were effectively built on the Spruance hull though.
US tend to use Cruiser when it has full command facilties onboard (Tico’s) they do also have 2 x 5 inch instead of 1 and 122 VL rather than 96 that the AB’s have (the reason for there being 122 rather than 128 is that 3 at the stern, and 3 at the bow VL farms are plated over as they were used for a crane, when the crane was decommissioned they never filled the space with silos).
Would seem the Canadian’s have designed a useful T45 replacement for us (if we brought into Aegis). Could save some cash down the line and have more actual ships…
T26 is a great foil to all the naysayers who bang on about Britain not being to manufacture or export, an order from Norway and if we could sell a few more T31s as well (perhaps build a few more with an AAW focus to supplement our own destroyers) it would be good news all round.
Have the Australians chosen their ‘off the shelf’ frigates yet?
The four candidates as listed are:
Give me the 3 litre Alfa any day, glorious power plant.
Andrew
Is that the car which was very well known for its best-in-class acceleration….
…. especially the rate of corrosion of its structural bodyshell?
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Are you waching the Red Bull team in action later on today?
Lancia all the way for thaw award!
Thanks for sharing 😉
With its current VLS capacity its certainly not a destroyer replacement, and the mission bay conversion is more than just slapping them in there. Plus their version is a rather scaled down Spy 7
Until we figure out what radars and missiles T83 is using i dont see how we could make an AAW T31
“Plus their version is a rather scaled down Spy 7”
I’d really like to know the capabilities of the different SPY-7 versions, like the SPY-6 versions are differentiated. I’ve seen contradictory info. The latest I have seen is this blurb that I copied and pasted, I think from an article in Naval News:
“The AN/SPY-7(V)2 variant has been scaled to meet the specific mission needs of the F-110 program. The AN/SPY-7 (V)1 is being developed for Japan’s Aegis System Equipped Vessel or ASEV and The AN/SPY-7(V)3 is under development for the Canadian Surface Combatant or CSC.”
I wonder how the version the Spanish F-110s are getting differs from the Canadian. River class version. I assume the ASEV version for the Japanese is bigger and more capable, being intended for high-end BMD.
Yes would be interesting to know. At a guess it depends on weapons, requirements of those weapons in terms of range and prevision, and certainly size. Canadas is only 3 panels, F110 is 4, size difference is hard to tell, ASEV is also 4 but much larger as it was originally going to be a shore based Radar
The Rivers have 4 panels. SPY 7 is a 4-panel design. You may be thinking of EASR, which is a derivative of SPY-6, and has a single rotating panel option SPY-6(V)2, as well as a fixed 3-panel option SPY-6(V)3 (which has been selected for the new Constellation class frigates of the USN). .
I just didnt look closely enough at the pictures. There are definitely different versions of Spy 7 though for 3 different navies.
I have also read that the SPY / AEGIS systems on non-US ships are less capable then the kit on their own ship, but I don’t know any more than that nor really know whether its true or not. You would always hope the UK could get the best kit from the US based on our relationship with them, but perhaps its a strong argument to retain a domestic capability.
Following the SPY 1 naming convention its likely just a difference in scaleability and the number is just the version. Japan was first, Spain second and Canada third to get their systems into the design stage.
SPY 6 by Raytheon is only for higher end US vessels and even excludes nato navies.
I cant say I know the details as its top secret but its said to be a special type of transmit receive modules using advanced material
Spy 7 is a downgraded tech from Lockheed Martin for smaller US vessels ( FFG etc ) and allies.
For our fixed plate fanboys SPY6 even comes in a rotating versions(V2). Give up now that you have been defeated !
SPY-7 is not downgraded tech from SPY-6, Lockheed would argue it has the better radar tech with its dual polarization and it was chosen in preference to SPY-6 by the Japanese after a visit to both Lockheed and Raytheon to compare the radars, originally for its BMD Aegis Ashore sites which were cancelled and replaced by the two ASEV destroyers, Would note the SPY-7 antennas fitted to ASEV are bigger than the SPY-6 antennas fitted to Burkes – USN has stated radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture.
PS Lockheed won the contract for the massive BMD radar in Alaska with its two 60′ x 60′ antennas with same AESA GaN Dual Polarization tech.
Japan didnt chose 7 over 6 . The 6 is not available for export , even the usual allies
I don’t know where you are getting your info from but you are way off on this. Japan was offered both and chose the SPY-7 over the 6 for a number of reason, mostly workshare, integration and compatibility reasons it’s been speculated. The SPY-7 is the basis of the LRDR which is arguably the US most important radar system and will most like be the basis of the UKs future missile defense radar. The UK was approved a FMS order in 2022 for a future ballistic missile defence radar with Lockheed being the principal contractor which all but assures us that it will be the SPY-7 based radar. Again, the SPY-7 is not downgraded tech but is actually a cutting edge system and I don’t think anyone can say one is definitively better than the other but like most things one might be better for certain situations and use cases.
Alaska BMD and its flat face radars already exists
“had won a $4.1 billion contract from the U.S. government’s Missile Defense Agency to develop its battle command system”
The wording of your link doesnt say new radars just Lockheeds ‘battle command system’ or ‘Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC)
those radars known as Cobra Dane were made by Raytheon and updated.
Lockheed do have a a separate system for the Space Force
‘Located on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, the solid-state S-band Space Fence radar system achieved initial operational capability on March 27, 2020.’
more info
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/space-fence.html
as you can see its a vertical facing radar in the low central building
Check out the new Lockheed LRDR, Long Range Discrimination Radar with its 60′ x 60′ arrays, a totally different MDA contract. Note the word “Discrimination” in title as the radar needs to be able to discriminate the ICBM warheads from the accompanying cloud of decoys and debris for the very limited number US GDI missiles available to target the warheads in space and why the MDA chose the Lockheed radar with its dual polarization tech in expectation its discrimination would be that capable. Dual Polarization came to prominence in weather radars with its ability to distinguish type of rain, hail, snow etc
In March 2022 MOD gained US State approval for sale of Lockheed BMD radar and associated C2.
Long Range Discrimination Radar | Lockheed Martin
SPY-7 again even for Japans land based system
Even the GaN components are ( currently) made in Japan by Fujitsu
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-01-11-Lockheed-Martin-Demonstrates-Next-Generation-Aegis-Ashore-Solution
“Spy 7 is a downgraded tech from Lockheed Martin for smaller US vessels”
I would caution against saying the SPY-7 is downgraded tech.
It just is ! Why else would the US not make it available for allies.
Originally Raytheon and Lockheed were in competition for the high end system and Raytheon won. Once it was developed into a workable system for testing the detection capability far exceeded the expectations. Thats when its became a restricted US only hardware
Lockheed went on to build a lesser capability radar for a different contract but is still scalable
Then why is it that the Japanese delegation visited both Lockheed and Raytheon and picked the SPY-7 in preference to the SPY-6 saying it had by far the better performance and selected it for its Aegis Ashore, and why when cancelled and replaced the ASEV destroyers Lockheed had to mount a campaign to convince Japanese not to change to the USN standard of Aegis and SPY-6 and stay with the SPY-7 with Aegis
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/japan-mod-secures-2-5-billion-to-build-two-asev-for-fy2024/
Japanese industry is a partner with Lockheed is why . Fujitsu makes the GaN components for the test systems , only later will production transfer to US.
Its not a choice when the other system from Raytheon isnt allowed for export, but marketing buzz is worded that way
Thats not to say the 7 isnt good , just the 6 is better
Do you have evidence to back up the claim SPY-6 is not available to allies? Because I have it on pretty good authority it was in consideration for the CSC, but the RCN, after some modelling, chose the SPY-7.
I read that was the case previously but I cant find it now. it fits in with the operational testing of Spy-6 exceeded the intial modelling so was far ahead of the Lockheed offer.
Other than Lockheed marketing saying its was RCN or Japan ‘choosing’ Im curious about your source( their marketing is always on message)
The bottom line is that Spy-6 is the clear favourite of USN so should win hands down.
That could be part of the reason to build an AAW T31 – I imagine the people who developed Samson are getting on a bit now, if we wait until the 2030s it will be a capability which will have to be expensively regenerated or its an off the shelf buy from another country.
Id already argue for an off the shelf solution, Sampson is great but developing our own niche solution to pair with Mk41 instead of exploiting whats already out these is going to be more expensive. Especially for only a handful of vessels.
Would also argue T31 is way smaller in scale than what the T83 will be so you couldnt really employ the same radar system.
British defence kit is exporting rather well.
SAMPSON is a battle proven design now – it has the ‘this works as advertised sticker on it’
SAMPSON evolution is funded – so there is a team working on that right now.
So there is question of ‘generate from scratch’
Given how well T26 and T31 exported T83 is one to watch.
If you look at Euro navies there are very few options to export, Netherlands is working on their own, so is Germany, were not going to collab with any of the Slyver cell navies. Spain will also more than likely develop their own. Dont see any opportunities really.
And now apparently danes are looking to replace their IH class earlier that planned due to their issues in the red sea
Sampson evolution may be funded but its inevitable T83 will be looking for Phased arrays, have to wonder how much work is required to evolve sampson into that. As well as presumably losing the volume search radar into fixed panels as well.
Sampson is alreadt an AESA phased array radar. From memory while S1850M uses a PESA antenna, the AESA SMART-L MM can take the same adaptations as the S1850M for an easy upgrade route to give a volume radar capable of spotting longer-range ballistic missiles.
Fair point. But a question I have is how come fixed arrays are so much larger than those of the Sampson?
The non orthogonal problem is your answer to that……?
The more acute the angle of observation is to the face: the more power and sensor area is needed.
There are good reasons why SAMPSON is the way it is.
And there are good reasons it is a highly respected system.
Flat panels have a sweet spot and with four panels it isn’t even on 360 degrees.
All I’m saying is whether is feasible for Sampson to be upscaled to function as a set of fixed arrays as previous comments discuss, because that’s almost certainly what T83 will aim for
And whether that’s worth the effort compared to buying into an established phased array system, seeing as well probably also be buying US missiles for AAW, I kind of doubt Asters successor will be integrated into Mk41
The plus of Sampson is its 10 decks above the waterline.
Large power flat panels are maybe half that, but frigates can put low power smaller versions higher up
What ever the type – flat or rotating – the plus of having an enclosed mast built separately and all the cables and equipment pre installed and tested before adding to the superstructure
Not likely . The US navy top end and not even for nato allies SPY-6 comes in superstructure fixed plates and a mast based rotating version too (V2)
Pretty Sure Japan is getting Spy 6 for their next destroyers? Don’t think it would be that hard for us to get the same.
And yo avoid confusion I know separately they are building the 2 ASEV vessels with Spy 7
SPY-6 is NOT available for allies. So answer is no.
Japan has selected 7 as thats only whats available
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/spy-7-radar-in-japans-aegis-system-detects-space-objects/
We haven’t had any confirmation of Spy 7 for their future destroyers, only ASEV. Suppose Spy 6 is one of their exclusive technologies like F22, B21 etc
Still, other already established options than a redesign/totally new Sampson
Apparently Raytheon are talking to other countries about it tho.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/naval-warfare/farnborough-2022-germany-japan-and-australia-interested-in-raytheons-anspy-6-radars/
years old as its dated 2022
I mean it’ll be years till Japan builds their next gen destroyers, you could be right, well have to wait and see
The newest contract by Japan both for its land AEGIS and arsenal destroyers is still SPY-7 . Actual recent orders
Lockheed has partnered with Japanese industry so its a foregone conclusion that 7 is the system they have and will buy
That still doesn’t rule out other countries from getting Spy 6 if Raytheon was reaching out about it. But we’re going in circles at this point.
Also they aren’t getting Aegis ashore and Arsenal ships, the Aegis Ashore was cancelled and evolved into the 2 ASEV vessels.
I appears, as many posters have attempted to tell you, that you are incorrect – Germany is apparently installing it on their new F127 Frigates:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/german-f127-aaw-frigate-takes-shape/
Its just a graphic which they say resembles Raytheon SPY-6
The vessel is just a concept from a naval shipyard as your source ..LOL even says this
“In related news TKMS released more substantial information on what the builder calls the A-400 Air Missile Defense (AMD) frigate. The design itself does not represent the precise configuration preferred by the German Navy for F127″
This is absurd to claim as something Germany is doing?
TKMS concept isnt even chosen yet.
get back to me when the FMS -pre approval well in advance needed- for SPY-6 goes through.
Fantasy Fleet flagship
.webp
This an actual contract with Lockheed for its Spy-7 on a vessel under build
.webp
Having one system on an image doesnt rule out the other – until decision made and FMS approved
Hmm. Not aware of any other radar that looks like that.
Still waiting for your evidence that SPY-6 is exclusive to the USN btw.
The finer details arent important , just that the superstructure shape and hieght can hold either radar type …. when they possibly place an order with TKMS. Not a foregone conclusion as the badly botched the last frigate class for Germany – the lead ship was rejected as it was riddled with faults
So where was the FMS pre approval for Canada to buy Lockheed or Raytheon depending on their final choice ? These things for trusted allies arent onerous to get pre approval- when they are for sale to allies
here it is back in 2021 only says SPY-7
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/canada-aegis-combat-system
Lockheed marketing bamboozles a lot of people
Interesting that a ship set is US$425 + for the complete Aegis system
You can see how a frigate/destroyer easily becomes well over US$1 bill each
Hence some go for 6 panels, rather than 4.
Who has 6 panels – unless its for different frequency radars ?
The Japanese in some frigates and Italians in PPA have 8 panels
4 for each frequency.
CEA on Anzacs are hexagonal (ie six sided, not 4). Same for Hunter.
Quite
Oh yeah, “… with four panels it isn’t even on 360 degrees”
Where did you get that from?
FYI, Erieye planar array radar, as an example, in E/F-band transmit/receive modules that produce a beam, steered as required within the operating 150° sector on each planar array, thus two planar arrays can cover 300° Azimuth.
So with a four-planar array, each can more than overlap to cover a 90° sector to provide 360° coverage Azimuth.
Building modern warships based on radars that cannot provide 360° coverage would be laughable.
Tell this to the German Sachsen class APAR, Israel’s Sa’ar 5 class EL/M-2258 ALPHA, Japan’s Akizuiki class FCS-3, and let alone the SPY-1 used on Korea’s KDX-III class, Spanish’s Alvaro de Bazan class, Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen class, RAN Hobart class, USN Arleigh Burke class, all are four planar arrays.
There are ever seven sets of SAMPON built and in each T45 has to be supplemented with SMART-L for volume search.
What is not possible is for you to get this idea in your head with new technologies. Just like your comments on hypersonic missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles that could never work, lol.
Is the old story of finding faults in others for going down a Cul-de-sac, TSR2, Nimrod AEW-3, Challenger 3 tanks … laughable. You will go far as an expert witness in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry,
Steering a beam has disadvantages which means they have to make them larger
hahaha, at this point I think it’s obvious to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Wiser heads than mine agree with me.
Yours is a different name same answer every week , as of course you have no information to add
Duker,
My apologies for my last remark which was admittedly petty. I did provide you with a number of articles supporting my point. I’m reluctant to post links to other news sites here for obvious reasons but I can post excerpts for you to read and decide for yourself. The except below is from “The Diplomat” website from a few years ago. make of it what you will.
“Japan selected the SSR over Raytheon’s SPY-6 radar system. As I reported earlier this month (where I referred to Japan’s radar as a scaled down variant of the LRDR) , “according to the Japanese official, the MoD selected the [SSR] over Raytheon’s SPY-6 due to lower lifecycle costs and its sophisticated target discrimination capabilities.”
The July 30 MoD statement also cited the SSR’s better overall system performance and cheaper acquisition and operating costs in comparison to the SPY-6 radar, which is slated to be installed aboard the U.S. Navy’s latest class of Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyers by 2023.
One of the most likely explanations why Japan picked the SSR over SPY-6 is the former’s earlier availability. The SPY-6 will likely not be ready for export before 2024 or 2025″
Again as I have stated in a previous comment, It’s hard to say one is “better” than the other since the most likely answer is one might outperform the other in certain aspects while not being as good in others. There are also cost, integration etc. considerations when these decisions are made. The fact remains the option of the SPY-6 was there for Japan.
My apologies . I didnt recall your handle from before , but a check shows you have used
Not only are you hypocritical but also narcissistic, as soon as someone disagrees with you, instead of coming up with an agreement, you become condescending and call people sock puppets, Most of your posts are incoherent and brag,
never used social media before have you . welcome to the club
All radars produce radio frequency beams, which is the basic detection principle. Steering the radio frequency beams for 360° Azimuth coverage is done by either mechanical rotating antennas and/or by electronically using multi-planar array antennas.
It is elementary physics but maybe you have yet to obtain GCSE level.
Ummm
The issue with flat plate is the sensitivity decreases as you move from the orthogonal to the plate.
At acute angles the sensitivity drops considerably.
What I should have said is that ‘sensitivity isn’t even over 360 degrees’.
There FIFY.
That is just simple physics.
Compensated for by the larger panels so the acute angle sensitivity is acceptable. And by the panels working together off axis.
Or you use a smaller plate(s) which are lighter and rotate them fast as SAMPSON does and out then higher up.
As I say SAMPSON works perfectly well in real world tests. Sea VIPER is a well proven system with masses of upgrade potential.
RN is focussed on skimmers/cruise. So it needs to be high from the lessons of ‘82.
If you want my prediction T83 will have son of SAMPSON to do skimmers, high up, and something else to do ABM.
The something else could be flat panel. I’ve nothing against flat panel but it isn’t perfect.
Nobody said that SIMPON is inferior to four planar array radar, it is your defensive interpretation,
However, it is incorrect to say that a four planar radar system could not provide 360° Azimuth coverage.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of a radar system is a function of the power output of the antenna, The higher the power output the longer the range and the reflected signal back from the target,
Whatever AA missile system is coupled with the radar system is beside the point and is a separate topic. And for the record, the SPY-1 radar system has an equally proven track record in combat situations,
Planar arrays provide directional beams, symmetrical patterns with low side lobes, much higher directivity (narrow main beam),
SIMPON has two planar array (plate as you called it) back to back, so it needs to be rotating to provide 360° Azimuth coverage.
It is physics as you put it and is elementary.
“ However, it is incorrect to say that a four planar radar system could not provide 360° Azimuth coverage.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of a radar system is a function of the power output of the antenna, The higher the power output the longer the range and the reflected signal back from the target”
I’d have to take issue with that.
The power & therefore sensitivity decline at acute angles to the face of the plate. There are many open source, peer reviewed, publications covering that..
Range is also a function of height. You can have all the power in the world and once you hit the radar horizon that is that. OK well….sort of….
T45 was designed for a specific usage case based on existing and evolved threats. There was a lot of future proofing in the high level thinking.
SAMPSON was specifically developed to answer that usage case – to pick up very fast supersonic skimmers/cruise missile and a few other threats at range. It was never intended to be a volume search radar. How it works in tandem with the 1850 set is very interesting. It is how the two are fused.
You can’t put a 4 plate system with SAMPSONs power as high up as it needs to be to have the reaction time to allow multiple systems to engage incoming skimmers and therefore have a fully layered defensive system. The height that was chosen was not random.
Multiple flat plate systems certainly have their place and can provide things that SAMPSON cannot. But the plate systems are replacing 1850 and part of SAMPSON’s role.
But I’d reframe the question to…..”why do virtually all high end ships have two main combat radar systems”….
BTW The first one was actually on HMS Kent, The County Class one. It never worked properly because of computing power issues rather than electronics. The maths and algorithms were all worked out on that test bed. UK has been into these systems for a long time.
Sensitivity refers to a radar detector’s ability to pick up signals at the greatest distance
Define what an acute angle is.
What open-source, peer-reviewed, publications are you referring to?
What is “all high-end ships”?
The past performance of RN ships is no indication of the future,
You are going down a rabbit hole.
What are the 2 main combat radar systems of Arleigh Burke?
Its a very old system from the 80s with a multi function but does have separate missile guidance radars
Not as good as separate radars with different bands and can guide the missiles in flight
Guidance radars are not search radars. Those are for semi active guidance a legacy system.
Just pointing out that not all major combatants have dual radar systems,
How come the Horizons warships have 2 radars as well
Remember too Sampson is already AESA type while only now are Burkes getting AESA type flat plate radars
Those are rotating assets so the coverage is less complete than a fixed 360º system.
Of course more different radars the better redundancy and resistance to ECM, the Italian DDX will have planar 360º dual band so 2 antennas in each 90º facing and also a rotating radar i suspect for real vertical search.
Not fixed 360 deg. It fill in the gaps by beam steering which is lower power
The Sampson being an S band active radar- which SPY-1 isnt- use shorter wavelengths so needs a separate long wavelength passive electronic radar in addition. The US SPY-1 and SPY-6 AEGIS still require dedicated missile guidance radars which Sampson can do as part of its AESA hardware
The SPY-6 system is described as TWO radars- technology has combined into one unit-, but only just going into service
“The SPY-6 system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors.
An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination, and missile communications, while
the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication, and terminal illumination of targets
My belief is that Lockheeds Spy-7 has separate x and s band arrays
June 28 the Ottawa Citizen reports they don’t have a final cost for the multi-billion dollar project or have completed the design, hope it will be completed before they start build as a basic before you start build of any ship.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/government-to-begin-construction-on-new-warships-despite-not-knowing-the-final-cost-or-design#:~:text=The%20government%20will%20have%20more,or%20actual%20cost%20is%20folly.
River-Class Destroyer Fact Sheet quotes displacement as 8,080t whereas T26 quoted at 6,900T ?
https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer/fact-sheet.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1dqo5rg/2200_x_1700_infographic_for_the_river_class/?onetap_auto=true&one_tap=true
The funding for this class has been addressed in the recent update to the defence policy, whereby spending will rise to 1.76% of GDP by 2029.
https://cdainstitute.ca/statement-on-the-defence-policy-update/#:~:text=As%20a%20part%20of%20budget,cuts%20in%20the%20short%20term.
The GoC has also stated that when the “unfunded” programs in the policy such as a new fleet of 12 subs, and missile defence, to name a few, that ratio will rise to “over 2%”. It remains to be seen if the GoC follows through on the 2%, but given Canada committed to this in 2014, and recommitted to it last year, it seems likely.
I’m old school RCN. Ex HMCS QUEBEC, (Cruiser exHMS UGANDA) CRUSADER, FORT ERIE, RESOLUTE. Depending on the ship the armament was 6” guns or 4” guns with a variety of Bofors AA guns. CRUSADER experimented with Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) a bit ahead of its time!
All of the new weapons leave me in awe and I recognize how times have changed!
I slept in hammocks or on top of boot lockers and had the luxury of “Up Spirits”.
I hope the practice of naming ships after rivers or notable Canadian sites continues.
Don’t adopt the U.S. style of naming ships after people! It’s bad enough the ASOPS have done so!
If Norway ordered 5 T26 presumably only 1 or at most 2 would be built in The UK until they could set up domestic production?
This is pure guess work but they may take one of our early builds to get back to 5 frigates (as one of theirs sank) then who knows, maybe build the rest on the end of our queue or alternate. Still not entirely sure its a good idea for us to win such a contract with our current issues.
That would make sense.
Perhaps wouldn’t be too bad if it was only 1 of ours and there was a parallel commitment to accelerating the later builds.
Part of the reason France wins more exports in this area must be because they tend to have more of a continuous drumbeat of construction and don’t wait until their existing fleet is in the state the T23’s are now in, so can divert vessels to foreign customers who lack domestic expertise and want fast deliveries.
Am wondering what France will do after its FDIs, guess theyll be looking to sell them to Norway too
Depends when they want the other 3 or 4- assuming they get one of our early ones (2 or 3?) to replace their sunk one. If they can inject enough to speed up our production, then they may get replacements in the mid-2030s. Which, to be fair, may not be too bad for them.
Will possibly negatively impact T83 though, because I don’t see anyone but BAE delivering them, and T45 may end up getting run ragged if Norway tack 4 hulls to the back of our T26 order…
BAEs can accelerate things a lot with the build hall and newer tech on the panel line.
All the wrinkles are out of early fabrications.
Absolutely, fully agree. But it’s all down to whether it’s in their best interests- they’d need the Norwegians to commit to them so they knew that there’d be sufficient work to prevent lay-offs once ours were done.
You then have to wonder if the RN would be ready to receive them on an accelerated timeline- we don’t have many crews.
The solution to that would presumably to alternate Norwegian and RN hulls, so that the delivery rate to the RN would be maintained to the plan. But the Norwegian design would then need to be almost exactly the same from a physical perspective I expect- or the potential nightmares of getting things mixed up would start keeping the Project Director awake at night…
it will be done , just BAE want more British government money first. Its always a clue when they talk about job losses
I wouldn’t be so confident. The Govan panel line is fine as it is and really only helps with decks, bulkheads and bits of the superstructure.
The real issue is outfit – from pre-outfit hotwork to later stages and indications are that it may not be going well. That requires good planning and enough manpower to apply at the right point, both in planning and execution.
I agree on the skilled fit guys/foremen/managers in any project are the pinch point.
Thing is the Nordics understand labour is very expensive…..ours is cheap compared to theirs!
The T26 doesn’t have degaussing. Are the RCN going to fit DG? If not I suspect they won’t be operating in the littoral if there is a Mine threat.
I thought that DG was a process rather than a system ?
You’re probably thinking of “deperming”.
Probably, thanks for the link.
RCN is fitting it with a degaussing system. Specifically, a superconducting degaussing system to save weight and space impact.
Interesting link.
Shaped magnet fields who would have thunk it.
A superconducting magnet optimised to create steerable and attenuating stray fields. My guess anyway……not much of a guess really.
Actually certain scientists have been doing that for about 50 years…..
Now all you need to solve is the field mapping……I wonder…….well actually I don’t……
Maybe why MAD probes went out?
Hi,
Where they going to find all the necessary sailors?
Just smoke and mirrors from the Trudeau regime. NO construction contract has been awarded.
The CBC says so
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-shipyard-contract-to-build-15-navy-warships-1.7249877
However these sorts of things happen in ‘phases’ and while a proof of concept module is the first steel work to start the most money is spent on contracts for forward orders for the software systems – a major project in itself-, weapons systems, sensors, propulsion etc.
Greetings from Canada!
A few items not addressed by this otherwise excellent article. Although there is no official explanation why the Rivers have been (re-)classified as destroyers, one suspects that the moniker stems from the expectations that the RCN has of this vessel. It is intended to be a general-purpose ship with a balance of AAW and ASW, but also with the C2 capability to lead a task group. If it lacked the SPY-7, Aegis, and CEC and sported a simpler radar and combat system, and if there was a strong ASW bias, I think the RCN would have left the frigate designation alone.
Secondly, there is talk in high-up naval circles about building the class in batches, with future batches potentially sporting additional Mk 41 cells midships, even if this means deleting the flex deck. Indeed, there is a recognition – spoken sotto voce – that 24 cells up front isn’t going to allow a sufficient load-out of SM-2s and, potentially, Tomahawk.
Naturally, this will add complexity to the program, and a future government will have to decide how to proceed. But the promise to raise defence spending to 1.76 % of GDP by the end of the decade, plus the powerful politico-industrial constituencies that have grown up around this program, may combine to see it to fruition.
BAE are already showcasing options to go in the mission bay area. They say the costs would be similar (you save on the expensive handling system to offset the changes). 16 or 32 mk41 vls & you still have full ASW (with smaller mission bay). Or go 64 with no mission bay, no towed array (still have hull mounted sonar) & propulsion changes (to keep performance on spec). Plus the existing bow mounted mk41’s.
No towed array on a T26 hull is a massively wasteful configuration. Why would you buy a hull and propulsion system designed and optimised for quiet, and use it on a ship that doesn’t detect submarines efficiently? The Americans found out on the A-Bs that a good hull mounted sonar alone doesn’t cut the mustard; variable depth is necessary.
Haven’t been able to determine if this is the towed array that Ultra will provide.
https://www.ultra.group/media/2523/sea-lancer-2nd-gen-datasheet_final.pdf
Note the title of the advert: a LF active and passive array in a single tow. But also note the ‘Overview’ which states that “The Sea LancerTM system provides a Low Frequency Active (LFA) Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) in a reelable single tow..”
No towed array is if you fitted 64 mk41 cells in the mission bay. In the case of Hunter, this would be a total of 96 cells (same as an AB destroyer). You could also go 64 cells with towed array. Type 83?
Agree on the classification. TG command and control with AAW bias in sensors and combat management made this a destroyer.
Hello again Trev.
The RCN OPVs are 6000 tons !
Harry De Wolf
They are huge OPV’s with a rather small armament akin to the B1 Rivers (RN).
End of the day their duty is just patrol, and in canadas case mostly close to home waters
Seems a strange requirement as their northern waters have minuscule commercial traffic. While the icebreaking capability is needed but the crew size is small
Previously the patrol types were very small and more protected waters such as the Bird class
That’s going to change as trans-polar traffic increases with decreasing ice-coverage and ultimately access all year round.
But then you don’t in global warming or that the earth is a globe…
AOPVs are designed for artic and temperate waters. One is currently sailing along South America to Antartica. Caribbean patrols are regularly performed during winters when artic ice prevents access to all but heaviest of icebreakers.
I confess to being confused by the vls loadout and the defensive capabilities of the various systems.
Granted no one wants to use camm as they already have something, but the T26 has 48 of the little devil’s, AND has a 24 cell mk41 for (using some imagination and bearing in mind the Artisan is not a long distance type) sm2 or whatever.
Thus gives a very respectable 72 aa missile loadout, presuming all cells have aa types in them.
The other ships have had to have big redesigns to achieve something similar, but even then these users would/,might want land attack/asroc or something as well, further reducing AA loadout .
Providing 48 camm in whatever version at least ensures we have 48 AA missiles even if the mk41 is jam packed with …whatever.
Can’t be bothered but a chart of possible loads for the various ships would end all arguments….
AA
The UK Version like you say has Artisan, which has a disputed range but is generally good enough for Sea ceptor and possibly the ER.
In missile loadout actually technically takes it beyond the total capacity of 32 mk41 cells, with the concession that near a quarter are just for Camm, or the equivalent of 12 cells.
It’s also possible to quad pack Mk41 but with that existing silo T26 will probably mount various offensive weapons in its 24 mk41 instead.
Overall T26 has the equivalent of 36 cells, can launch 48 compact missiles and 24 single missiles or 144 compact missiles
Very unclear on the radar of the other 2, obviously much higher end, maybe capable of some kind of ABM, but the Hunter as is stands fields 32 Cells, can’t obviously put any configuration they like into all those cells unlike T26. Or go upto 128 ESSM
And then Canada was originally slated for 24 Mk41 and 6 Exls, the 6 Exls is now most likely gone in favour of an unknown amount of RAM.
But going off just the VLS it can pack 24 single cell weapons or 96 ESSM
Kind of funny the destroyer is technically the least armed, obviously can debate over other equipment like canister missiles, torpedo tubes etc.
While the River-class has a low Mk41 VLS cell count, in theory, they could quad-pack 96 ESSMs into those 24 cells. And ESSMs have twice the range of CAMM. Using 8 cells for 32 ESSM would leave only 16 for SM2, Tomahawk, or some combination thereof. Obviously, the more ESSM they carry, the more point AAW capability they have. Admittedly, this would come at the expense of long-range AAW and land-attack, and that might not make sense for some missions.
If I am correct the T26 (UK version) anti-ship missile is intended to be fired from the VLS, so with 8 anti-ship missiles, that would leave 16 for AAW missiles. Whereas River-class has separate quad launchers for 8 NSM, so that helps to offset the limited Mk41 space somewhat.
As I understand it, the Canadians originally intended to have 24x CAMM in a 6-cell ExLS as a close-in air defence system (CIADS). They dropped this in favour of RAM (supposedly twin 21-cell Mk49 systems from what I read) since they could carry more missiles, save weight, and most importantly, could be reloaded at sea. I’ve read speculation that this decision was influenced by the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Also, apparently integration with Aegis was easier with RAM.
As someone noted above, they are looking for ways to squeeze additional Mk41 cells into the hull, and this may be incorporated into future batches.
The CAMM-M/Ceptor has a closer in effective range plus more manouvering because its 35% of the weight of ESSM. Switching to only ESSM for short-medium range means then you have to go with Ram to do what Ceptor does.
It seems unlikely City class will have any mk41 AAW missiles, maybe quad packed camm if they need more than the 48 they have.
CAMM-MR will be dual packed in Mk.41.
It should arrivejust after 2030….the Polish are sticking it, along with CAMM and CAMM-ER in their A140 (T31) derived ships.
That should give T26 a 150km+ capable missile (i.e. SM2).
The T26 will undoubtedly get 8 NSM in deck launchers…the RN has ordered a far few for the type 23s.
A proper Type 26 except for the small hangar size.
I wonder where will be the RAM missile launcher, if at side if of SSM launcher it will have limited rotation for the missile exhausts not hit the SSM launcher.
Interesting that the heli platform do not cover all the stern
The holes in the Helo pad are for line handling, and how is it a proper T26 if the British version is the original.
I see that Glasgow also don’t have a full helipad stern. Yeah probably that. Maybe that gives more protection to the sailors instead of the hules under the helipad like in T23.
Proper= using destroyer sized hull to make a multi mission ship.
Destroyer and Frigate aren’t exactly solid terms these days. 10k ton German Frigates with 16 vls, Canadian CSC “Destroyer” with 24 vls.
Especially in the Royal Navy its about role more than fit out, why build the ships smaller, there’s little advantage
The RAM change is a late one but this view shows that the launcher is on a sponson and doesnt impact any other system
Where? i don’t see it in the image you posted.
Click on it to make extra large or go back to the various different views NL has provided
I’d highly recommend NOBODY to click that link.
Might be nice if the moderator removed that post with the suspect link?
Looks like your wish has been granted.
Good move by the moderator.
Reading this informative and interesting article it seems to me highly probable that the Type 83 will be a based on a derivative of the Type 26 hull and machinery, perhaps inspired by the Canadian River class. True though it may that the hull is not a major part of the total ship cost, going this way will save time and saving time keeps the shipyards and major suppliers (most of all, the skilled staff) employed and that does save a lot of money.
Finally: “We won’t wait, we want eight!”
I think something bigger will be needed. The RN needs more VLS capacity.
Larger and more powerful but, say, 4 ships in I longer timescale or a Type 26 derivative and, I hope, 8 ships, rather sooner?
I found it odd that more thought wasn’t given to an area AAW capability for T26 by the RN. Um. No I didn’t!!
.
After a lot of musing on this down the years I think the mistake was simply that the ‘ship’ that replaced T42 should have also replaced T23 too. By 2018/19 we would have 12 ships in commission. But hey ho.
I agree, it would have been possible 12 destroyer like ships.
The only ‘possibility’ at the time was 8 as that was a contractual option for 2 extra
This was around 2005 or so. Different world strategically and even construction wise then including the carriers and Astutes being built.
no way the RN had the funding for 12 unless something else major cut or cancelled
That was after the Horizon AAW disaster had eaten part of the budget.
More budget was eaten by developing T45.
Even more budget was wasted by finishing of developing SAMPSON.
That was how the numbers were incrementally reduced.
It had nothing to do with Treasury who allocated a fixed pot of money to the program.
UK actually did well with hull numbers compared to Italy and France.
Whilst I would have preferred them to have had Mk41 from the off – getting 6 hulls is better than getting 4 with all the whistles from the off.
Italian and France money went to the FREMM’s
“no way the RN had the funding for 12 unless something else major cut or cancelled”
Wasted wasnt the case , just the intial estimates were probably scaled from previous radars not what it was going to cost in then money. This happens all the time
hence the something else would be cancelled if more money went into buying 12. Post cold war 8 was feasible , 12 was never going to happen with the downsizing of the frigate/destroyers numbers and the carriers plus astutes costs rising
It would have saved money by spreading the cost. Larger ships would have meant better endurance taking some pressure off the RFA’s. It would have allowed us to build simple combatants for specific roles say a diesel frigate for the Norwegian Sea and North Atlantic.
.
.
Loving that option truth be known. Leonardo would do well to produce them in Yeovil though. It’s a fair way to the Sea and i can’t see a Merlin being able to get it there ! Would they be a better bet being built in Appledore ?
They would have to be built in Scotland or perhaps partly in Italy. Perhaps with some blocks made elsewhere?
I do like what the Italians are doing, 11000 TN’s seems to be a pretty serious platform nearer to the PLAN Type 055. Not sure either of the new sheds would be big enough to build them though.
They’re not going to built an Italian design. Especially since it’s built round Slyver rather than Mk41 VLS, T26 hl is also unlikely as its far too small for what appears to be the T83 ambition
Did I even say we would ? Erm, no I really didn’t.
He is incapable of understanding the hypothetical. You and I see a picture of a large European style destroyer. The way perhaps a possible T83 could look with two VLS etc. An idea or concept. Something to think on. To Hugo though that means we war saying that will be T83. I have asked to stay away from my comments repeatedly but he seems incapable of complying with even that simple request. He is just out to cause trouble yet again.
I’m not incapable of understanding the hypothetical, but when it’s something so unlikely I’m going to point it out.
Also F### off mate I didn’t reply to your comments and now here you are slagging me off, and expect me to just say nothing.
Like you seriously expect me to stay out of a thread you’re in? Bog off you’re not special and you certainly can’t tell me what to do.
Don’t t take it personally.
The Zoophiliac thinks he is beyond criticism and that we should all keep quiet. He particularly dislikes facts that prove his opinions to be misguided or wrong.
One frequent tactic, which he’s used on you here, is to misrepresent what you say in a disingenuous attempt to cover up his blunders.
regardless of the comments though, I do believe the RN should be looking at larger vessels than a T26 derivative, not sure if a T26 could be stretched enough to provide the capacity that is so obviously required. (Looking at the PLAN 055, not anything Russian) We should not ignore the Chinese.
This Italian design looks pretty good in my rather humble opinion, I would like to think that the future T83 would be at least as capable/large.
You discussed how they would if they did though.
Morning, I was replying to another comment but it was a rather tongue in cheek reply linking Leonardo with Yeovil, it was a sort of sarcasm as Leonardo production facilities are rather land locked. I know it wasn’t even remotely funny. Sorry for the confusion.
Ah, gotcha.
Certainly though it’s an impressive design by the Italians, shame they aren’t building more.
Impressive for any nation, I would hope that the T83 will be equally impressive.
.
.
8 DDG’s and 32 major surface combatants in the “escort fleet” is the bare minimum for the RN if the UK is truly serious about “Global Britain”. It’s that simple. Along with this would be a minimum of 8 SSGN’s (attack sub numbers generally match destroyer numbers) and oh by the way enough aircraft and other systems to fully and properly equip the carriers. Do this while strengthening the RFA and beefing up ordnance stocks. supporting logistics, and maintenance and you’re in business.
Less than this, not so much.
Not even the USA has 8 SSGNs, unless you’re referring to attack subs
Unrelated… but the Iranian navy hilariously demonstrating what happens when you get ship stability wrong
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/09/middleeast/iranian-warship-sahand-capsizes-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
Interesting..could be out of action for 6 months…my arse… it’s sunk FFS, they will be lucky to ever get it operational again.
I think you’re right. Not the physical damage of the HNoMS Helge Ingstad, but I think the exposure of electronics and machinery to sea water will see in scrapping or at best major multi-year refit that would cost as much as a new build.
Personally I really can’t imagine why Iran would even bother to build a navy or Airforce, It’s not like they are even close to western levels of tech. They would be better off just stoking the fires of regional tensions and hiding behind the vast emptiness of their huge country.
You will never, ever convince me that RAM > Phalanx. Artillery-based close in weapons systems are dramatically cheaper and easier to operate and they are proven in combat. I have no problem fitting RAM in addition to Phalanx, but not RAM instead of Phalanx. Sorry, no way.
The candians seem to have the Leonardo Lionfish 30mm instead of a phalanx type
The RAM is necessary because of the minimum range limitations of ESSM- the Ceptor system intially considered covers the close in and medium range of the RAM and ESSM capability . Not as much long range of the very much bigger ESSM
The 5in main gun is Leonardo as well
Originally I dont think the 30mm’s were intended too much for airborne drones or as a CIWS. Now? I think all three variants are rocking two 30mm.
The CSC/River class was never going to have Phalanx. CAMM was going to do that job now RAM. Right or wrong time will tell
So the RN probably could go directly for a second batch of type 26s with long range area defence capability…6 Type 45s is just not enough AAW platforms so say 3 type 26 AAW would make a big difference.
It would be cheaper to upgrade the T31s. An extra Smart-L MM radar, change of missles in the Mk41s and not even all that much integration. We need more hulls but I don’t think we are going to get any.
Yes indeed it’s a big enough hull for a reasonable radar fit…
More ASW for the hulls – as well as the helicopter- instead of more AAW.
The ceptor and its search radars are fine for the role and the aerial threats are going more drone like rather than super stealth stand off aircraft at 150km
Whichever cost estimate you take, these are very expensive ships. The $C 84b figure means a cost of @Владимир Темников £3.2b per ship. That’s @Владимир Темников 4x the cost of the latest batch of T26s.
I just stop using the@Владимир Темников sign
Thats not the build and equip cost . Thats lifetime costs.
Only the US Navy publishes actual contractor build and equip costs.
What Canada is basically doing to the Type 26 is turn it into a compact, Mini Burke DDG. It’s the same lineage as the Spanish Navy’s Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates and the Hobart class Destroyers from Australia.
Except not enough VLS. Need to ditch much of the mission bay & add another 32 vls in that space. Cheaper to build a dedicated ship rather than the mission bay. Shoving everything into the same hull creates compromises.
While I like the replacement of the Sea Ceptor with the Mk.49 GMLS with 21 RAM, I would much prefer the adoption of the Leonardo Marlin 40 over the Lionfish 30 weapon systems. The 40x365mm 3P ammunition is far better than the 30x173mm of the latter. The Marlin 40 is marginally more expensive, but far more capable with significantly greater range with and also able to function as a CIWS, whereas Lionfish 30 is not capable of that role in any meaningful role.
I am not sure of the max capacity, but it seems extremely short sighted of the RCN to not install at least 32 Mk.41 VLS cells from the outset. How a ship the size of an Arleigh Burke Flight 2 destroyer has only 32 Mk.41 VLS cells when the Flight II Burke’s have 96 cells is beyond me, but that is a discussion for another time.
So 30 yrs before all the river class destroyers are built do when the last destroyer is built we will be retiring the 1st one and I’m sure the world will wait for us to catch up lol. Just like the supposed submarines we are getting they will all be obsolete by the time they are finished building them and our frigates will be 60 to 70 years old by the time the last destroyer replaces the last frigate. Canadian government military spending and procurement is a joke