UK Defence Forum

SeaRam only on Canada's Type 26. No Phalanx Looking good

Poiuytrewq wrote:SeaRam only on Canada's Type 26. No Phalanx

Anti-boat autocannons, though, to cover the blind sectors of the main gun
- despite the fact that SeaRam has an anti-surface capability

A well balanced package. What do they actually carry as for the autocannons (and ASuW missiles)?

Model looks like DS30Ms still, although thats likely just due to having them on line for the models.

Missiles in Canada are Harpoon Block 1Cs right now. I imagine they'll stick with Block 2, although the USN selecting NSM may shunt that these days. (See that, RN?)

Anyone got a clear picture of the front silos? Still uncertain how many are on it.

RetroSicotte wrote:Anyone got a clear picture of the front silos? Still uncertain how many are on it.

I don’t have a clear picture I’m afraid, but it looks like it’s 4 x 8 cell modules on the model at Euronaval 2018. So, 32 Mk.41 silos in all. Although you’re right, the configuration seems to differ depending in which model/graphic you are viewing.

EDIT: The Mk. 41 silos are quite clearly visible at the 0.47 mark in this video from Naval Recognition. Thank you Xavier and crew.


I’d also like to know whether they’re all the same variant or some mix of 303” strike length, 266” tactical variant and 209” self-defence variant. I have a sneaking suspicion that the foremost Mk.41 module, which is located where the SeaCepter silos are on the Royal Navy variant might be self-defence (ESSM) only.

Simon82 wrote:I’d also like to know whether they’re all the same variant or some mix of 303” strike length, 266” tactical variant and 209” self-defence variant. I have a sneaking suspicion that the foremost Mk.41 module, which is located where the SeaCepter silos are on the Royal Navy variant might be self-defence (ESSM) only.

Cheers for the spot. I would suspect the same. ESSM quadpacked in the front, then the rest made up of SM-2 and possibly ASROC.

Simon82 wrote:I don’t have a clear picture I’m afraid, but it looks like it’s 4 x 8 cell modules on the model at Euronaval 2018. So, 32 Mk.41 silos in all. Although you’re right, the configuration seems to differ depending in which model/graphic you are viewing.

EDIT: The Mk. 41 silos are quite clearly visible at the 0.47 mark in this video from Naval Recognition. Thank you Xavier and crew.

I’d also like to know whether they’re all the same variant or some mix of 303” strike length, 266” tactical variant and 209” self-defence variant. I have a sneaking suspicion that the foremost Mk.41 module, which is located where the SeaCepter silos are on the Royal Navy variant might be self-defence (ESSM) only.

The 32 Mk41 configuration seems to be an 8 cell module in front of the 24 as per UK configuration and not the 32 setup as the Australians have. Everyone so far has a different configuration which I guess is not a bad thing as it shows flexibility.

And hull completion by the end of 2020 and possible launch early 2021. Seems to be a very long time to outfit and test prior to commissioning in 2025. The aircraft carrier was outfitted and tested quicker than that.

matt00773 wrote:And hull completion by the end of 2020 and possible launch early 2021. Seems to be a very long time to outfit and test prior to commissioning in 2025. The aircraft carrier was outfitted and tested quicker than that.

I’d honestly be surprised if the Type 31e beats the Type 26 into service now as I believe it is supposed to. If it does it’ll only be through further artificial delays of HMS Glasgow.

According to DE&S the timescale for both the T-26 and T-31e are unchanged regarding to entry into service of the first of class.

Lord Jim wrote:entry into service of the first of class.

'27 for the T-26
but isn't it '23 in the water for T-31; have not seen an in-service date?

Does anybody know which countries might seriously consider t26 derivative in future or is that it in reality for t26 sales or got their own programs or just 2 expensive ? As Ive said before be great NZ Brazil etc but in reality I think that's it for foreign future sales ,but it's not done bad I guess anyway

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:entry into service of the first of class.

'27 for the T-26
but isn't it '23 in the water for T-31; have not seen an in-service date?

I thought 2023 was in service.

inch wrote:Does anybody know which countries might seriously consider t26 derivative in future or is that it in reality for t26 sales or got their own programs or just 2 expensive ? As Ive said before be great NZ Brazil etc but in reality I think that's it for foreign future sales ,but it's not done bad I guess anyway

I think that's it. Plenty room left for Type 31

Ron5 wrote:I thought 2023 was in service.

Yes it is. In fact on the graphic I saw I’m sure all five Type 31s are supposed to be commissioned Royal Navy warships before HMS Glasgow is finally handed over in 2027 following what sounds like it’ll be a 5 - 6 year sea trial period.

Shame ron5 ,yes I think your right fella .and as t31 I personally just don't like the program or entries ,its all a bit small ambition in my book ,think we shouldn't even bother with them spend money on something else hey but who am I

I thought it was being put forward for Germany too.

It is, though the fact that it is a British design is being well disguised. I suppose it's rather like us contemplating the possibility of buying German tanks

Yes apparently so papagolf but realistically you got to put its chances against a close German European partner in the Dutch and joint partnership in the jss ship Karel doorman and maybe future build ships and wanting a European winner and seen to be winning over a brexit UK ,it's v doubtful you got to admit no matter how good the t26 is

Caribbean wrote:suppose it's rather like us contemplating the possibility of buying German tanks

Yes, that one well camouflaged, too. Just the turret and the gun, so 'most' of it stays British .

Likelihood of RN (and RAN and RCN) getting this (Vulcano) for their Type 26 ? They were the "launch customer" for that automated handling system after all ...

xav wrote:Likelihood of RN (and RAN and RCN) getting this (Vulcano) for their Type 26 ? They were the "launch customer" for that automated handling system after all ...

Hope they can afford some, money is a problem.

BAE Vulcano? How did BAE get their mitts on that?

In the same way they got their hands on the Iveco SuperAV for the USMC 8x8 requirement. BAE needed a good product, ready now, and Italy needed a big partner with real US clout.

Do they own the Vulcano now? Or do they just market it?

shark bait wrote:Do they own the Vulcano now? Or do they just market it?

Think of it like how Lockheed is handling Type 26 in Canada. They are the front for its marketing, contracting, and likely manufacture. Leonardo is the design provider.

Think BAE Inc taken a license from Leonardo for the Vulcano 155mm shell as a possibility to replace the Lockheed Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) shell used in the BAE Advanced Gun System fitted to the three USN Zumwalt NGFS destroyers, LRLAP which did not meet spec and costing ~$1M for each round, even USN found that too rich (Zumwalt programme cost $24B for the 3 ships and R&D).

Since cancellation Nov 2016 USN has made no move to replace the LRLAP, one problem with the AGS was it was specifically designed for the LRLAP and chamber and barrel twist rate non-standard and so unable to use artillery shells designed to NATO 155mm standard.