Lockheed Martin (LM) CSC Type 26 Frigate Design

[GRANNY001]

Hi folks. I have been having discussions on other forums about what will be the final design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Type 26 Frigate. Canada will be building 15 of these 8000 ton monsters. the LM design phase is still in progress, but there are some features we already know and some we can only speculate on. There are models below that show some features. Here is a summary of what it may look like:

1. LM "S" Band Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)-SPY 7(V) 1 Phased Array Air Search Radar-This has been confirmed by LM
2. X Band Illumination Radar supported by MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-below the SPY 7 radar mast, for integration into the CMS 330 system-this may be an MDA built radar or IMO it may be an existing radar from Thales (possibly the Sea Fire 500 Phased Array Radar) however MDA is not talking. Any enlightenment on this radar from any forum members, would be appreciated.
3. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-Electronic Warfare Suite System & Chaff launchers
4. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-Laser Warfare Defence System (again MDA is not talking). Could this system be fitted Port/Stbd midships to replace Sea RAM/CIWS Blk 1? Any takers on this one?
5. 32 x MK 41 strike length VLS (ESSM2, SM II/IIIC-SM3/6). Nothing confirmed. Anything from members?
6. Combat Information Management-Links 11/16/22/GCCS-M
7. MK 54 Torpedo system
8. Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (Magellan/TKMS)
9. 6 x ExLS VLS-Aft of the funnel (Sea Ceptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
10. 2 x 4 Quad packs NSM-Port/Stbd-Above Mission Bay (maybe?)
11. Sea RAM System-Port/Stbd Mid-ships-some models show this system, others shoe CIWS Blk 1B with more recent models showing nothing, just a bare deck. Can anyone elaborate on this one?
12. Main Gun: 1 x 5 inch MK 45-127 mm
13. Secondary Guns: 2 x 30mm DMS 30 (Bushmaster 30mm)-(Port/Stbd of Flight Deck)
14. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
15. CMS: LM CMS 330/Aegis
16. Bow sonar-Presumably the Ultra 2150
17. Towed Array Sonar: Unknown but possibly improved CANTASS
18. RR/MT 30 Gas Turbine
19. Speed-30+ kts. SOR required this capability for US CBG ops.
20. Crew Compliment-208 max pers
If any member can add or subtract anything from this list, please let me know.

 

[Khafee]

Hi folks. I have been having discussions on other forums about what will be the final design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Type 26 Frigate. Canada will be building 15 of these 8000 ton monsters. the LM design phase is still in progress, but there are some features we already know and some we can only speculate on. There are models below that show some features. Here is a summary of what it may look like:

1. LM "S" Band Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)-SPY 7(V) 1 Phased Array Air Search Radar-This has been confirmed by LM
2. X Band Illumination Radar supported by MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-below the SPY 7 radar mast, for integration into the CMS 330 system-this may be an MDA built radar or IMO it may be an existing radar from Thales (possibly the Sea Fire 500 Phased Array Radar) however MDA is not talking. Any enlightenment on this radar from any forum members, would be appreciated.
3. EW Suite & Chaff launchers
4. 32 x MK 41 strike length VLS (ESSM2, SM II/IIIC-SM3/6). Nothing confirmed. Anything from members?
5. Combat Information Management-Links 11/16/22/GCCS-M
6. MK 54 Torpedo system
7. Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (Magellan/TKMS)
8. 6 x ExLS VLS-Aft of the funnel (Sea Ceptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
9. 2 x 4 Quad packs NSM-Port/Stbd-Above Mission Bay (maybe?)
10. Sea RAM System-Port/Stbd Mid-ships-some models show this system, others shoe CIWS Blk 1B with more recent models showing nothing, just a bare deck. Can anyone elaborate on this one?
11. Main Gun: 1 x 5 inch MK 45-127 mm
12. Secondary Guns: 2 x 30mm DMS 30 (Bushmaster 30mm)-(Port/Stbd of Flight Deck)
13. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
14. CMS: LM CMS 330/Aegis
15. Bow sonar-Presumably the Ultra 2150
16. Towed Array Sonar: Unknown but possibly improved CANTASS
17. RR/MT 30 Gas Turbine
18. Speed-30+ kts. SOR required this capability for US CBG ops.
19. Crew Compliment-208 max pers
If any member can add or subtract anything from this list, please let me know.
View attachment 13987
View attachment 13988
View attachment 13989
View attachment 13990

Hopefully it will be a faster procurement than the Air Force.

 

[GRANNY001]

Hopefully it will be a faster procurement than the Air Force.

Yep! However the RCAF normally procures replacement programs once selected, fairly quickly, so they may beat the RCN as we will not even start the build for these "Super Frigates" until at least 2023 Maybe?

 

[Khafee]

Yep! However the RCAF normally procures replacement programs one selected fairly quickly, so they may beat the RCN as we will not even start the build for these "Super Frigates" until at least 2023 Maybe?

2023? Why is Canadian procurement so slow?

 

[GRANNY001]

2023? Why is Canadian procurement so slow?

A lot of Canadians would like to know the answer to that as well. It all stems from the "decision phase" started two years ago. There were delays from the government and a bidding process that was flawed from the beginning. Then the government changed the requirements from only looking at "mature" ships to allow for ships that were just on the drawing board (on paper) in order to allow LM/BAEs Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) to enter the "so called"race who were the eventually winners in late 2019 . Then came the appeal from one of the bidders, Alion (see below) which was eventually dismissed from the Canadian Governments Tribunal board. We are only in the Design Phase from LM at this time, which will not be finalized by LM until late next year (2021) which you can bet your bottom CDN dollar will drag on with any changes the government may want to make (and most likely will). That will take this agonizingly into late 2022 with the first keel being laid in early 2023 which makes some sense, I guess, as the Canadian government has always said that our designed CSC Type 26 would be about 3 years behind the Australian Hunter class Type 26. The first British Type 26 (HMS Glasgow) will most likely be doing sea trials in 2023. A very, very, long process indeed! But IMO a ship that the RCN really wanted and perhaps, a better design than that of the others (possibly a blessing in disguise).

 

[Khafee]

A lot of Canadians would like to know the answer to that as well. It all stems from the "decision phase" started two years ago. There were delays from the government and a bidding process that was flawed from the beginning.

Then the government changed the requirements from only looking at "mature" ships to allow for ships that were just on the drawing board (on paper) in order to allow LM/BAEs Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) to enter the "so called"race who were the eventually winners in late 2019 .

Then came the appeal from one of the bidders, Alion (see below) which was eventually dismissed from the Canadian Governments Tribunal board. We are only in the Design Phase from LM at this time, which will not be finalized by LM until late next year (2021) which you can bet your bottom CDN dollar will drag on with any changes the government may want to make (and most likely will).

That will take this agonizingly into late 2022 with the first keel being laid in early 2023 which makes some sense, I guess, as the Canadian government has always said that our designed CSC Type 26 would be about 3 years behind the Australian Hunter class Type 26.

The first British Type 26 (HMS Glasgow) will most likely be doing sea trials in 2023. A very, very, long process indeed! But IMO a ship that the RCN really wanted and perhaps, a better design than that of the others (possibly a blessing in disguise).

There seems to be no urgency for defence projects, and that is understandable. One gets the feeling that procurement programs are intentionally dragged to stretch the $ as much as possible. In retrospect, with no immediate threat, except an invasion by polar bears, money being spent efficiently else where is just fine.

The last decade and a half, has seen a lot of norms being challenged, so RCN is playing it EXTREMELY safe, from the looks of it. Making sure that the future ships can be upgraded via modules, and short retrofits, to keep them current. With enough capabilities to tackle evolving threats.

 

[GRANNY001]

There seems to be no urgency for defence projects, and that is understandable. One gets the feeling that procurement programs are intentionally dragged to stretch the $ as much as possible. In retrospect, with no immediate threat, except an invasion by polar bears, money being spent efficiently else where is just fine.

The last decade and a half, has seen a lot of norms being challenged, so RCN is playing it EXTREMELY safe, from the looks of it. Making sure that the future ships can be upgraded via modules, and short retrofits, to keep them current. With enough capabilities to tackle evolving threats.

You have us "down pat" Khafee! Not enough polar bears left in the world to invade Canada anyway (or maybe.....yes)! We've all seen to that! I believe your last comments are just about "on target" and kind of make sense. The biggest "norm" we have now is COVID-19. The Canadian government has spent well over what we should have on COVID-19 programs to the point where our children's, children's, children will still be paying off this debt! It may decrease our own defence budgets over the next few decades to the point where procurement funds will be non-existent very soon!

 

[GRANNY001]

The Australian Financial Review has just published an article (26 June 2020) called "sinking-feeling-frigate-heads-back-to-drawing-board about their Hunter class Type 26 frigate. What affect, if any, would this have on the CSC Frigate design program? Here is my rebuttle to this article:

The LM CSC Type 26 Frigate's weight was always known to be around 8,000 tonnes and I believe that the Naval version of the SPY 7 (V) 1 radar weight was always factored into the total tonnage of the ship. Here is what the facts are. The US SPY 1B radar weight below deck is roughly 12,400 lbs (that includes all cabinets) with the Antennas on the mast weighing about 7,900 lbs which gives that radar a total weight of around 20,300 lbs or just over 10 tonnes total weight. The Naval version of the SPY 7 (V) 1 total weight is as yet unknown, but has fewer cabinets than the SPY 1B due to improved technology and lighter Phased Array Antennas (fewer Radar Module Assemblies-RMAs) on the mast. Yes, the CEAFAR 2 Radar total weight on the Australian Hunter class Type 26, I suspect, is somewhat heavier than the Naval SPY 7 (V) 1, but nothing that would bring the total tonnage of the Hunter class to the "industry source's" weight of over 10000 tonnes which I believe to be extravagantly exaggerated for effect. The Australian Hunter class Type 26 has a total weight of around 8,800 tonnes and even if the CEAFAR 2 radar’s weight (including RMA antennas) were factored in, it would more than likely not affect ships speed or balance. Also, don’t forget the Spanish have also chosen the LM SPY 7 (V) 1 for its AAW system on its future F 110 class Frigate which is slightly lighter at 6,100 tonnes than either the CSC or Hunter class. The Spanish don’t seem to be concerned about speed or balance. The AN/SPY 6 (V) 1 AMDR are retrofit systems for the Arleigh Burke Flt III ships. They have 37 Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs) on each Phased Array mast and would naturally be much heavier. Similarly, the SPY 6 (V) 4 with 24 RMAs, being retrofitted on the Arleigh Burke Flt IIs. The AN/SPY 6 (V) 1/4 AMDR are each much heavier than either the Naval SPY 7 (V) 1 or the CEAFAR 2 Radar systems and are specifically designed for the Arleigh Burkes and newer USN Aircraft Carriers. The Japanese “land” version and the US SPY 7 (V) 1 land version in Alaska are naturally much heavier than any Naval radar systems and should not factor into the equation.

Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board

New frigate to be built in Adelaide will be longer and heavier than first proposed, raising concerns about cost and performance.

www.afr.com

 

[GRANNY001]

There seems to be no urgency for defence projects, and that is understandable. One gets the feeling that procurement programs are intentionally dragged to stretch the $ as much as possible. In retrospect, with no immediate threat, except an invasion by polar bears, money being spent efficiently else where is just fine.

The last decade and a half, has seen a lot of norms being challenged, so RCN is playing it EXTREMELY safe, from the looks of it. Making sure that the future ships can be upgraded via modules, and short retrofits, to keep them current. With enough capabilities to tackle evolving threats.

Hi Khafee. So far it hasn't been going too well for feedback from other members on my first post on possible CSC Frigate design features, and I am a bit disappointed. Just your thoughts so far. Maybe I have it on the wrong "Thread" or maybe members are just not that interested in Canadian Navy "goings on". Can you possibly "stir the pot" and "rustle up" some excitement from others. The last post I sent about the Australian Type 26 weight & length issues, should bring some good discussions from all members!

 

[GRANNY001]

This just in! It looks as if Japan has officially "scrapped" plans to deploy the "land-based" versions of the SPY 7 (V) 1 to their two radar sites. This however should have no impact on the LM Naval versions of the SPY 7 (V) 1 systems to be deployed on both the CSC Type 26 and Spanish F110 Frigate programs. See below.

Japan Aegis Ashore missile defense system deployment scrapped: Kono

Japan has scrapped a plan to deploy the Aegis Ashore land-based missile defense system in Akita and Yamaguchi prefectures, Defense Minister Taro Kono says.

english.kyodonews.net

 

[Khafee]

Hi Khafee. So far it hasn't been going too well for feedback from other members on my first post on possible CSC Frigate design features, and I am a bit disappointed. Just your thoughts so far. Maybe I have it on the wrong "Thread" or maybe members are just not that interested in Canadian Navy "goings on". Can you possibly "stir the pot" and "rustle up" some excitement from others. The last post I sent about the Australian Type 26 weight & length issues, should bring some good discussions from all members!

The thing is predominantly our members, even those from Canada are Pakistani. AND you have caught them in the middle of a storm. After many yrs of lull, PAF s inducting 2 new platforms, and augmenting 2 more platforms. Plus Army aviation is inducting 2 new platforms as well. So all the attention is focused there.

 

[GRANNY001]

The thing is predominantly our members, even those from Canada are Pakistani. AND you have caught them in the middle of a storm. After many yrs of lull, PAF s inducting 2 new platforms, and augmenting 2 more platforms. Plus Army aviation is inducting 2 new platforms as well. So all the attention is focused there.

Thanks for that info Khafee. I'll just keep on plugging.

 

[Counter-Errorist]

Hi Khafee. So far it hasn't been going too well for feedback from other members on my first post on possible CSC Frigate design features, and I am a bit disappointed. Just your thoughts so far. Maybe I have it on the wrong "Thread" or maybe members are just not that interested in Canadian Navy "goings on". Can you possibly "stir the pot" and "rustle up" some excitement from others. The last post I sent about the Australian Type 26 weight & length issues, should bring some good discussions from all members!

I have been reading your posts, but don't know enough about the Canadian Military to contribute.

 

[GRANNY001]

I have been reading your posts, but don't know enough about the Canadian Military to contribute.

Hello "Counter Errorist". Great to finally hear from someone! That's OK, I don't know much the about Pakistani military also. Maybe we can both learn from each other. The Lockheed Martin (LM) SPY 7 (V) 1 Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) is a new AAW radar chosen by Canada from LM for the new Canadian Surface Combatants, (CSCs) main Air Warning system and has been a hot topic here for some time. Again, thanks for replying!

 

[GRANNY001]

HMAS Sydney Commissioned at sea! What a great idea! This could "catch on"!