Lockheed Martin (LM) CSC Type 26 Frigate Design | Page 12 | World Defense

Lockheed Martin (LM) CSC Type 26 Frigate Design

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Canada has just chosen the OTO Malara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun system from Leonardo for at least the first 3 CSC Type 26 Frigates. A contract was signed on the 21st of April 2021, with the Leonardo company for 4 of these gun systems (3 for installation and 1 for training). So what about the rest of the Frigates? Does this mean the other 12 CSC Frigates will receive the BAE MK 45 Mod 4 naval gun? Why not buy all 15 OTO Malara 127/64 LW gun systems for every CSC Frigate or does this mean just an initial purchase with other contracts to follow? The gun is certainly lighter than the MK 45 but most likely more expensive. Weight and cost seem to be an issue here. The Leonardo OTO Malara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun will also offer the CSC Frigates the ability to fire extended-range, precision-guided munitions – both in guided long-range and the ballistic extended-range versions, as well as conventional 5” ammunition. This contract was a bit of a surprise as most experts have always said that the MK 45 Mode 4 Gun was always the 'Front-Runner" for the CSC Frigate. The British and Australian Type 26 Frigates have always said that they will be installing the Mk 45 on their Frigate designs. I'm not sure if all the CSC Frigates will have this Leonardo gun system, or just the first 3 frigates as AAW ships weapon systems. The contract just doesn't indicate that so far. The purchase report can be seen below.

 
Last edited:

space cadet

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,338
Reactions
773 15 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
I think on paper the 127/64 is a better gun, whether real world practice that is what it is, I am sure there is plenty info out there for the people to find out. So my thoughts are it's a better gun, that's why they chose it.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,510 1,297 0
Canada has just chosen the OTO Malara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun system from Leonardo for at least the first 3 CSC Type 26 Frigates. A contract was signed yesterday, 21 April 2021, with the Leonardo company for 4 of these gun systems (3 for installation and 1 for training). So what about the rest of the Frigates? Does this mean the other 12 CSC Frigates will receive the BAE MK 45 Mod 4 naval gun? Why not buy all 15 OTO Malara 127/64 LW gun systems for every CSC Frigate or does this mean just an initial purchase with other contracts to follow? The gun is certainly lighter than the MK 45 but most likely more expensive. Weight and cost seem to be an issue here. The Leonardo OTO Malara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun will also offer the CSC Frigates the ability to fire extended-range, precision-guided munitions – both in guided long-range and the ballistic extended-range versions, as well as conventional 5” ammunition. The purchase report can be seen below.

THAT Is a very formidable 5 inch gun! Congrats!!! :--)

2 points:
1) This gun can also be used in an anti aircraft role
2) Sometimes the user wants to see how the post installation relationship with the OEM, and the actual performance / teething issues work out, before committing to more units.
 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
I think on paper the 127/64 is a better gun, whether real world practice that is what it is, I am sure there is plenty info out there for the people to find out. So my thoughts are it's a better gun, that's why they chose it.
My thoughts exactly, however Canada has been known before to choose different AAW guns with different rolls. The Iroquois class vs the Halifax class are perfect examples.
 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
THAT Is a very formidable 5 inch gun! Congrats!!! :--)

2 points:
1) This gun can also be used in an anti aircraft role
2) Sometimes the user wants to see how the post installation relationship with the OEM, and the actual performance / teething issues work out, before committing to more units.
Agree totally Khafee, and it is a formidable Naval Gunfire Support(NGS) and AAW Gun. As I said to mtime7 as well, Canada has been known before to choose different AAW guns with different rolls. The Iroquois class vs the Halifax class are perfect examples.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,510 1,297 0
Agree totally Khafee, and it is a formidable Naval Gunfire Support(NGS) and AAW Gun. As I said to mtime7 as well, Canada has been known before to choose different AAW guns with different rolls. The Iroquois class vs the Halifax class are perfect examples.
Given the number of guns to be procured, a better option would be to get at-least partial ToT, and stick to one supplier. But their $'s, their rules!
 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Given the number of guns to be procured, a better option would be to get at-least partial ToT, and stick to one supplier. But their $'s, their rules!
Agree Khafee. I just hope Canada sticks with this gun, as it is a great choice for all 15 CSC Frigates;)
 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada

CIADS missile system (CAMM) is announced for the Canadian Surface Combatant by MBDA​


Naval News is reporting that MBDA has confirmed the order on 19 April 2021 by Lockheed Martin to equip their Sea Ceptor Close in Air Defence (CIADS) Weapon System utilizing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) for the CSC Frigates. This system will replace the CIWS and Sea Ram weapon systems that were first envisioned for the frigates but with a much longer range. Certainly a great short range missile system for the CSC Frigate. It is not known however, if the CAMM CIADS system will also include the CAMM-ER or as it is called the Albatros-NG version which has a maximum range of approximately 40kms. The report can be seen at:

 
Last edited:

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,510 1,297 0
1620299435100.png

1620299450800.png




  • icon-weight.png

    Weight: 99 kg

  • icon-length.png

    Length: 3.2 m

  • icon-diameter.png

    Diameter: 166 mm

  • icon-min-intercept-range.png

    Range: In excess of 25 km

  • icon-speed.png

    Speed: Supersonic



 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
This announcement, although welcomed, is still very suspicious. This is the first we have heard of a “second” Heavy Ice Breaker to be built by both Davies and Seaspan Shipyards. It does however make more sense to have a “fleet” of two instead of just one Polar Ice Breaker for continuity (one in refit the other operational). But the costs for this fleet will surely double from $1.3B to more than likely well over $2.6-3B CAD for both of these vessels. No contracts have even been signed yet, so let’s not put the cart before the horse. This announcement still has to pass the “politics” test. It still smells a little fishy with a Federal election looming. In 2011, then Brian Harper's Conservative government included the construction of one heavy Polar Icebreaker into the work schedule of what was then called the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy to Seaspan shipyard in British Columbia. In June 2019, for several reasons, the Trudeau government moved construction of the heavy icebreaker out of Seaspan’s schedule, and in February 2020, it asked both Davies in Quebec and Seaspan shipyards to compete to build the ship. Today we have learned that the federal government will add two Polar Icebreakers instead of one to the Coast Guard fleet, and instead of selecting one shipyard to build the one icebreaker, shipyards in both Quebec and Vancouver will each build one. This is a good thing, but very puzzling? Let's not get into a fight between Seaspan & Davies as to who will be the "Prime Contractor". The government must make that decision for the shipyards and get on with the build as soon as possible although I believe there will be foot-dragging on that issue as well. No wonder Canada's ship-building strategy is still in such disarray!




 

Attachments

  • CCG POLAR ICE BREAKER.jpg
    CCG POLAR ICE BREAKER.jpg
    218.3 KB · Views: 35
  • CCGS JOHN DIEFENBAKER.jpg
    CCGS JOHN DIEFENBAKER.jpg
    484.8 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
It now seems that all of the CSC Frigates will be built in "batches" as is being done for the British BAE Type 26 Frigate program. The operative word in all of this is, of course, “possible”, as no contract has yet been signed with the US/Canadian government. One of these four shipsets would most likely be for setup and training at Lockheed Martins facility in Dartmouth, N.S. Doing the “batch” thingy for the first three CSC Frigates seems to be a prudent way to go, however, this could also give the government an “out” just in case the costs become too political down the road. I certainly hope not, as Canada needs all of these 15 Frigates just to maintain the tasks and missions required of the RCN to accomplish in the future. Future funding of the remaining batches of CSC Frigates, all of a sudden, seem to be “up-in-the-air”, but more concerning is the possible delay between batches which may leave Canadian industry and Canadian high-tech jobs “out-in-the-cold” and makes it very difficult to assess total costs of the entire project. We never seem to learn from our mistakes in the past. See below:

 

space cadet

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,338
Reactions
773 15 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
I think going in batches is a smart thing to do, although I am not well read on this subject it seems to me that the RCN maybe asking for the impossible out of these ships, in which case you run a very strong chance of having a huge cluster flop on your hands as the US Navy has proven a few times in the recent past. It will give them an out if they need it.
 

GRANNY001

Professional
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
285 25 0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Totally agree mtime7. It would be great though if Canada would sign the "Batch" contracts well before each one is completed. I always say.....
"We have done so much, with so little, for so long, that now we are ready to do anything, with nothing, forever"! Let's hope this all works out.:)
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,510 1,297 0

Canada – AEGIS Combat System


PDF Version: Canada_21-17.pdf

Media/Public Contact: [email protected]

Transmittal No: 21-17

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2021 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of AEGIS Combat System and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Canada has requested to buy
four (4) Shipsets of the AEGIS Combat System (ACS);
one (1) AEGIS Combat System Computer Program;
four (4) Shipsets of AN/SPY-7 Solid State Radar Components;
four (4) Shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC);
and three (3) Shipsets of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System.
Also included is Mode 5/S capable Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment;
early ACS development activities for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC)

Project to include U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering activities supporting design, integration, testing, technical documentation, modeling, and training; hardware to support development and testing in U.S. facilities; software; documentation (including combat system capabilities and limitations); training devices and services; technical support; and other related elements of logistical and program support.

The estimated total cost is $1.7 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress, and a contributor to military, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world.

This proposed sale will increase Canadian maritime forces’ interoperability with the United States and other allied forces, as well as their ability to contribute to missions of mutual interest by delivering the first AEGIS-capable Canadian Surface Combatant. This will significantly improve network-centric warfare capability for the U.S. forces operating globally alongside Canada.

Canada will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, Moorestown, NJ. There are a significant number of other companies under contract with the U.S. Navy that will provide components, systems, and engineering services during the execution of this effort. While the purchaser typically requests offsets, any offset agreement will be defined in future negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government representatives and the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada on an intermittent basis over the life of the case to support delivery and integration of items and to provide supply support management, inventory control and equipment familiarization.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded.
 
Top