Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

Which Anti-Ship Missile Should be Selected for the Type 26?

Lockheed Martin LRASM
164
52%
Kongsberg NSM
78
25%
Boeing Harpoon Next Gen
44
14%
MBDA Exocet Blk III
21
7%
None (stick to guided ammo and FASGW from Helicopters)
8
3%
 
Total votes: 315

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Halidon »

NickC wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 10:42
Zeno wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 13:34
On the radar side I think CEFAR lacks a certain subtlety and uses a lot of brute force to get results plus it appears to be specced for full on Area\Theatre AAW and even BMD this is more capability than needed, what is wrong with a SPY7 equivalent as sized for Canada or Spain.
With regards to SPY 7 This article suggests its not so clear cut between it and SPY 6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 1167e31da0
Lockheed claim the SPY-7 has 3.3 times the detection range of the existing SPY-1 radars and better detection range than any competitor radar (by implication Raytheon SPY-6), with SPY-7 Lockheed use dual-polarization, transmitting in both horizontal and vertical planes to create 2D images resulting in much better discrimination.

When the Japanese delegation visited US to pick the radar for the Aegis Ashore they visited Lockheed and Raytheon and said were much more impressed by the demo of the Lockheed radar. When Japanese cancelled Aegis Ashore and moved offshore to their planned two 20,000t Aegis ships, Lockheed convinced them to stay with SPY-7 and not change to the incumbent SPY-6 as used in the latest USN Burke Flight IIIs.

To be noted the MDA specified the long range X-band Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radar instead of a S-band, as used in both SPY-6 & 7, for the US Army THAAD BMD missile. X-band with it three times higher frequency was required by MDA to give the necessary discrimination, but X-band is an expensive option as the latest AN/TPY-2 radar costs a quarter $billion each for its single 100 sq ft array with 25,000+ X-band T/R GaN modules, for comparison the SPY-6 would only require 1,200 S-band T/R GaN modules to populate a 100 sq ft array. It would appear the Lockheed SPY-7 with its dual-polarization giving nearly the same discrimination as X-band and at considerably lower cost of an S-band radar and it was revealed last March by US State Dept that SPY-7 was the MoD option for UK BMD radar.

Lockheed not the only radar company to move to dual-polarization eg Thales taking similar route with their AESA dual axis multi-beam tech/simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth and elevation.
In the interest of completeness, it should not be omitted that Lockheed chose to pursue a design that sources their GaN semiconductors commercially, which gives them a theoretical advantage in overall sustainment costs and a big workshare advantage in being able to offer Japanese foundries considerable work on the JMSDF SPY-7. Raytheon designs and produces their GaN components in-house. Much as with the shocking decision by combat systems integrator Lockheed to source their radars from Lockheed in the Canadian program, there's more than one reason to pick a winner in these contests.
These users liked the author Halidon for the post:
Zeno

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 10:42

Lockheed not the only radar company to move to dual-polarization eg Thales taking similar route with their AESA dual axis multi-beam tech/simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth and elevation.
This is incorrect dual polarization and dual axis are two totally different things.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
These users liked the author SouthernOne for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacZeno

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

Halidon wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 18:31
In the interest of completeness, it should not be omitted that Lockheed chose to pursue a design that sources their GaN semiconductors commercially, which gives them a theoretical advantage in overall sustainment costs and a big workshare advantage in being able to offer Japanese foundries considerable work on the JMSDF SPY-7. Raytheon designs and produces their GaN components in-house. Much as with the shocking decision by combat systems integrator Lockheed to source their radars from Lockheed in the Canadian program, there's more than one reason to pick a winner in these contests.
Very large market for Gallium Nitride, mainly commercial Fortune say over $28 billion in 2022, used in mobile base stations and chargers etc etc and as you say Lockheed Martin source their gallium nitride commercially based on an Open GaN Foundry model, whereas Raytheon use an in house foundry for which they obtained $200 million grant from the US Government.

Lockheed have used Fujitsu GaN but others as well, Qorvo GaN in the Lockheed Army's Q-53 radar, if memory correct they use another companies GaN in the SPY-7 not Fujitsu? and as you say many there's more than one reason to pick a winner in these contests.
tomuk wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 19:59
NickC wrote: 18 Feb 2023, 10:42

Lockheed not the only radar company to move to dual-polarization eg Thales taking similar route with their AESA dual axis multi-beam tech/simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth and elevation.
This is incorrect dual polarization and dual axis are two totally different things.
Thanks, was assuming the Thales AESA dual axis multi-beam radar simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth and elevation system had the same result of much improved discrimination as dual polarization radars.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
Halidon

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 08:40
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
It will be interesting to see how the RAN Hunter Class ends up size wise actually compared to the RN T26, and whether it gives the RN an example of what a potential T83 could be, with better AAW.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 13:50 It will be interesting to see how the RAN Hunter Class ends up size wise actually compared to the RN T26, and whether it gives the RN an example of what a potential T83 could be, with better AAW.
Ignore Nigel and his delusional comments, the Hunters will be T26 sized.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Zeno »

An earlier article suggesting that the Hunter class weight will be within design limits with explanations of the modifications
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/specia ... e792c53bec
These users liked the author Zeno for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 08:40
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
But Hunter doesn't need a 'high end AAW' capability to defend it self, the desire seems to be to try and shoehorn onto it a theatre AAW/BMD capability onto it. This is the confusion, multirole ships are fine but that multirole capability shouldn't be at the loss of a key required capability or the waste of capability if a ship is fulfilling another role.

In the case of the USN whom the Australian media\lobby seem to lust over they have acknowledged there own predominance of AAW over ASW and have been trying to fix it first through the LCS and now the independence class frigates, although their need hasn't been so great as they have plenty of subs, aircaft and other systems to perform ASW.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 08:40
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
But Hunter doesn't need a 'high end AAW' capability to defend it self, the desire seems to be to try and shoehorn onto it a theatre AAW/BMD capability onto it. This is the confusion, multirole ships are fine but that multirole capability shouldn't be at the loss of a key required capability or the waste of capability if a ship is fulfilling another role.

In the case of the USN whom the Australian media\lobby seem to lust over they have acknowledged there own predominance of AAW over ASW and have been trying to fix it first through the LCS and now the independence class frigates, although their need hasn't been so great as they have plenty of subs, aircaft and other systems to perform ASW.
The rationale would be that due to the physical size of the Indo Pacific and the RAN's area of operations, its just not feasible to have two ships, one AAW plus one ASW, at every point of interest in the region. Ships will just have to be able to deal with whatever threat emerges where they are.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Hunter will be less capable in ASW, but it will almost certainly be more expensive than Type 26 to build and operate.

https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1 ... zYwMDAwMDA(MA~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA~!AU*MTY4NjA5MjI.MTYxNTMzMjg)Mw

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 22:11
tomuk wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 08:40
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
But Hunter doesn't need a 'high end AAW' capability to defend it self, the desire seems to be to try and shoehorn onto it a theatre AAW/BMD capability onto it. This is the confusion, multirole ships are fine but that multirole capability shouldn't be at the loss of a key required capability or the waste of capability if a ship is fulfilling another role.

In the case of the USN whom the Australian media\lobby seem to lust over they have acknowledged there own predominance of AAW over ASW and have been trying to fix it first through the LCS and now the independence class frigates, although their need hasn't been so great as they have plenty of subs, aircaft and other systems to perform ASW.
The rationale would be that due to the physical size of the Indo Pacific and the RAN's area of operations, its just not feasible to have two ships, one AAW plus one ASW, at every point of interest in the region. Ships will just have to be able to deal with whatever threat emerges where they are.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Hunter will be less capable in ASW, but it will almost certainly be more expensive than Type 26 to build and operate.

https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1 ... zYwMDAwMDA(MA~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA~!AU*MTY4NjA5MjI.MTYxNTMzMjg)Mw
If the Hunter is operating on its own it it only needs to defend itself it doesn't need area or theatre level AAW\BMD capability

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 00:27
SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 22:11
tomuk wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 21:45
SouthernOne wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 08:40
tomuk wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 23:24
But that isn't what T26 is and it isn't what you are buying T26 is a league ahead in the ASW role compared to a AAW Destroyer like the Hobarts. If you wanted more AAW destroyers you should just buy some.
I think that's the source of the confusion. The RAN aren't buying "T26" and never intended to. Rather they chose the BAE Global Combat Ship as the most suitable platform to develop into the ship they did want, which is a ship with high end AAW capability in addition to ASW and ASuW. None of the contenders matched what the ADF wanted off the shelf, but the BAE offering was already designed for Mk 41 and Mk 45, and had enough margin to fit the CEAFAR and Aegis. Whichever hull had been selected as the baseline, it was going to be fitted with these systems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/ ... es/9010228

This is not a coherent article, but this quote stands out: "Recent events in our region have proven that Australia's Future Frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium and long-range missile attacks."

Having different ships for ASW and AAW seems to be the path the RN has chosen, but for other navies this force structure just doesn't suit their needs.
But Hunter doesn't need a 'high end AAW' capability to defend it self, the desire seems to be to try and shoehorn onto it a theatre AAW/BMD capability onto it. This is the confusion, multirole ships are fine but that multirole capability shouldn't be at the loss of a key required capability or the waste of capability if a ship is fulfilling another role.

In the case of the USN whom the Australian media\lobby seem to lust over they have acknowledged there own predominance of AAW over ASW and have been trying to fix it first through the LCS and now the independence class frigates, although their need hasn't been so great as they have plenty of subs, aircaft and other systems to perform ASW.
The rationale would be that due to the physical size of the Indo Pacific and the RAN's area of operations, its just not feasible to have two ships, one AAW plus one ASW, at every point of interest in the region. Ships will just have to be able to deal with whatever threat emerges where they are.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Hunter will be less capable in ASW, but it will almost certainly be more expensive than Type 26 to build and operate.

https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1 ... zYwMDAwMDA(MA~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA~!AU*MTY4NjA5MjI.MTYxNTMzMjg)Mw
If the Hunter is operating on its own it it only needs to defend itself it doesn't need area or theatre level AAW\BMD capability
Keep in mind most of Australia's major cities are on the coast, so BMD is relevant in that context. "AEGIS ashore," but still on a ship. A Hunter (or two, and with all major surface combatants being AAW, ASW and ASuW capable, there's no need to match up complementary capabilities) may also need to provide AAW for other operational areas on island chains throughout the Pacific or Indian Oceans, or when accompanying LHDs, LPDs, or smaller vessels like the Arafura class OPV.
These users liked the author SouthernOne for the post:
wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SouthernOne wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 00:41 Keep in mind most of Australia's major cities are on the coast, so BMD is relevant in that context. "AEGIS ashore," but still on a ship. A Hunter (or two, and with all major surface combatants being AAW, ASW and ASuW capable, there's no need to match up complementary capabilities) may also need to provide AAW for other operational areas on island chains throughout the Pacific or Indian Oceans, or when accompanying LHDs, LPDs, or smaller vessels like the Arafura class OPV.
Again you seem to be talking a lot about AAW capabilities and requirements. If the threat is predominantly AAW again I ask why are you buying the world's supposedly preeminent ASW frigate. Having a Hunter hanging about between Timor-Lest and Melville Island providing BMD cover for Darwin is not good use of a $2bn dollar frigate with excellent ASW capabilities.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 02:34
SouthernOne wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 00:41 Keep in mind most of Australia's major cities are on the coast, so BMD is relevant in that context. "AEGIS ashore," but still on a ship. A Hunter (or two, and with all major surface combatants being AAW, ASW and ASuW capable, there's no need to match up complementary capabilities) may also need to provide AAW for other operational areas on island chains throughout the Pacific or Indian Oceans, or when accompanying LHDs, LPDs, or smaller vessels like the Arafura class OPV.
Again you seem to be talking a lot about AAW capabilities and requirements. If the threat is predominantly AAW again I ask why are you buying the world's supposedly preeminent ASW frigate. Having a Hunter hanging about between Timor-Lest and Melville Island providing BMD cover for Darwin is not good use of a $2bn dollar frigate with excellent ASW capabilities.
Maybe they would rather they send the 3 billion dollar Hobart instead.


In a world of cec and multi statics with an eye of dispersed capabilities necessary to survive the idea of single role warships is for a navy stuck in the past.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

I’ve mentioned this on another thread (apologies if this is OT) but I could see the requirement and the timeline for the T83 lining up with an Australian requirement for an advanced AAW destroyer/cruiser.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Zeno »

Obviously the Australian Hunter class is not the only Type 26 derivative, the Canadian navies new frigate is also highly capable in different operations of naval warfare , often the R.N s type 26 will serve as a very potent escort in carrier operations ,the Australian and Canadian carriers don't have carriers or even dedicated anti warfare destroyers ,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/
Lets also consider that the Pacific ocean is a more highly contested ocean than the Atlantic with more potentially armed opponents both air and surface so to have an all-round protection makes sense

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 07:46
tomuk wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 02:34
SouthernOne wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 00:41 Keep in mind most of Australia's major cities are on the coast, so BMD is relevant in that context. "AEGIS ashore," but still on a ship. A Hunter (or two, and with all major surface combatants being AAW, ASW and ASuW capable, there's no need to match up complementary capabilities) may also need to provide AAW for other operational areas on island chains throughout the Pacific or Indian Oceans, or when accompanying LHDs, LPDs, or smaller vessels like the Arafura class OPV.
Again you seem to be talking a lot about AAW capabilities and requirements. If the threat is predominantly AAW again I ask why are you buying the world's supposedly preeminent ASW frigate. Having a Hunter hanging about between Timor-Lest and Melville Island providing BMD cover for Darwin is not good use of a $2bn dollar frigate with excellent ASW capabilities.
Maybe they would rather they send the 3 billion dollar Hobart instead.


In a world of cec and multi statics with an eye of dispersed capabilities necessary to survive the idea of single role warships is for a navy stuck in the past.
Oh I hadn't realised how much they managed to spend on the Hobarts $3bn a piece for a redo of the Álvaro de Bazán is quite a feat.

You may say that single role warships are a thing of the past but even the worlds largest Navy has ships with different strengths within their multiple roles.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Zeno wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 11:35 Obviously the Australian Hunter class is not the only Type 26 derivative, the Canadian navies new frigate is also highly capable in different operations of naval warfare , often the R.N s type 26 will serve as a very potent escort in carrier operations ,the Australian and Canadian carriers don't have carriers or even dedicated anti warfare destroyers ,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/
Lets also consider that the Pacific ocean is a more highly contested ocean than the Atlantic with more potentially armed opponents both air and surface so to have an all-round protection makes sense
The CSC is quite instructive it has good radar and missile fit why do the Hunter need even more?
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
SW1

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 17:18
Zeno wrote: 20 Feb 2023, 11:35 Obviously the Australian Hunter class is not the only Type 26 derivative, the Canadian navies new frigate is also highly capable in different operations of naval warfare , often the R.N s type 26 will serve as a very potent escort in carrier operations ,the Australian and Canadian carriers don't have carriers or even dedicated anti warfare destroyers ,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/
Lets also consider that the Pacific ocean is a more highly contested ocean than the Atlantic with more potentially armed opponents both air and surface so to have an all-round protection makes sense
The CSC is quite instructive it has good radar and missile fit why do the Hunter need even more?
Different requirements. I don't think Canada has ever mentioned BMD for example (more an issue for the CMS though), or know whether they required vendors to have proven performance against supersonic sea skimming anti-ship missiles.

The Aus and Can procurement contests were quite different. Australia preselected CEAFAR, AEGIS, Mk41 and Mk45, so bidders had to demonstrate how these could be incorporated into their hull designs. For the Canadian competition vendors could include whatever systems they wanted, so its not surprising that a consortium led by Lockheed Martin seems to have focussed so heavily on using systems that are products of LM or its commercial partners.

calculus
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 12 Jun 2019, 19:04
Canada

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by calculus »

That's not correct. The CSC program specified many systems. Some examples are CMS330, MK41, CEC, CH148 support, MK54 torpedoes, Integrated Bridge and Navigation system from OSI, and Aegis, to name a few. For those capabilities where a specific system was not specified, there was a rigorous requirements definition, which did result in some non-standard (relative to T26) systems. Examples of this are the main and secondary guns (both from Leonardo), and the ExLS launch system for SeaCeptor.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

calculus wrote: 21 Feb 2023, 12:55 That's not correct. The CSC program specified many systems. Some examples are CMS330, MK41, CEC, CH148 support, MK54 torpedoes, Integrated Bridge and Navigation system from OSI, and Aegis, to name a few. For those capabilities where a specific system was not specified, there was a rigorous requirements definition, which did result in some non-standard (relative to T26) systems. Examples of this are the main and secondary guns (both from Leonardo), and the ExLS launch system for SeaCeptor.

Canadians also specified a different VDS the Ultra Canada TLFAS system, not Thales, but the same HMS as the T26 and Hunter, the Ultra S2150. The CSC AAW system will have CAMM for CIWS, ESSM for point defence and SM-2 area defence.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 21 Feb 2023, 14:35
calculus wrote: 21 Feb 2023, 12:55 That's not correct. The CSC program specified many systems. Some examples are CMS330, MK41, CEC, CH148 support, MK54 torpedoes, Integrated Bridge and Navigation system from OSI, and Aegis, to name a few. For those capabilities where a specific system was not specified, there was a rigorous requirements definition, which did result in some non-standard (relative to T26) systems. Examples of this are the main and secondary guns (both from Leonardo), and the ExLS launch system for SeaCeptor.

Canadians also specified a different VDS the Ultra Canada TLFAS system, not Thales, but the same HMS as the T26 and Hunter, the Ultra S2150. The CSC AAW system will have CAMM for CIWS, ESSM for point defence and SM-2 area defence.
As with Australia a lot of the Canadian fit is sourced from either indigenous suppliers or those with a significant local workshare.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

calculus wrote: 21 Feb 2023, 12:55 That's not correct. The CSC program specified many systems. Some examples are CMS330, MK41, CEC, CH148 support, MK54 torpedoes, Integrated Bridge and Navigation system from OSI, and Aegis, to name a few. For those capabilities where a specific system was not specified, there was a rigorous requirements definition, which did result in some non-standard (relative to T26) systems. Examples of this are the main and secondary guns (both from Leonardo), and the ExLS launch system for SeaCeptor.
This the Navantia submission: https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... m-bid.html

"Our team incorporates the following key components:
• Saab's globally recognized 9LV Combat Management Systems (CMS), in service on over 240 platforms in 16 navies across the globe, including Canada’s own Halifax Class Frigates;
• CEA Technologies Active Phased Array Radar, that is fully compliant with Canada’s requirements and in service onboard the Royal Australia Navy ANZAC Class frigate as well as being mandated for all future frigates to be built for the RAN; and
• Other key partners to the Navantia-Saab Team including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Mission Systems – Canada, DRS Technologies Limited Canada, OSI Maritime Service and Rheinmetall Canada."


This is Alions: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ogram.html

"Alion’s combat system solution is based on the world-class capabilities of ATLAS-Elektronik and Hensoldt Sensors. ATLAS brings an outstanding, globally renowned open architecture Combat Management System that readily accepts new and evolving technologies. "

So there were far more variables in the cost/capability/local content assessment for the CSC competition compared to Australia's.

USN and RAN ships with a four panel SPY-1 array also use a SPQ-9B mounted high on a mast for surface and low altitude search, so all in all CEAFAR is not that "complex."

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

I might be incorrect but I understood the version of CEAFAR to be fitted to Hunter included X (SPQ9), S (SPY1/SAMSON) and L (S1850M) band arrays.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SouthernOne »

tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 01:41 I might be incorrect but I understood the version of CEAFAR to be fitted to Hunter included X (SPQ9), S (SPY1/SAMSON) and L (S1850M) band arrays.
That’s pretty much it.

CEAFAR is scalable, so each array can include more or fewer T/R modules depending on required range, and available power and cooling. The arrays fitted to the Hunters should be a noticeable step up in size / range compared to those currently used on the ANZACs, a <4,000 tonne vessel.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

SouthernOne wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 04:00
tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 01:41 I might be incorrect but I understood the version of CEAFAR to be fitted to Hunter included X (SPQ9), S (SPY1/SAMSON) and L (S1850M) band arrays.
That’s pretty much it.

CEAFAR is scalable, so each array can include more or fewer T/R modules depending on required range, and available power and cooling. The arrays fitted to the Hunters should be a noticeable step up in size / range compared to those currently used on the ANZACs, a <4,000 tonne vessel.
My understanding is different in that the CEA Technologies radars are based on Northrop Grumman radar tech

2017 Monch article in interview CEA “The S-band radar for the Future Frigates as such comprises 64 tiles for a total of 4096 elements,[64x64=4096] and the whole ship radar system will include approximately 20 faces,”// The key advantage in having such a large number of elements and 6-faces, is that the radar can deal with multiple threats at the same time as well as threats demanding a very fast response such as supersonic missiles. “When a supersonic missile is detected attacking a ship, there is virtually no time for human decision-making; instead, it is crucial to have a system that can detect and make a decision as fast as possible,”

CEAFAR’s thousands of elements, combined with the use of gallium-nitride (GaN) in the power amplifiers, ensure a high standard of reliability in those situations. “The system has also been built to adapt to changing threats by learning from each situation,” “While previously the limitation of a response to a threat lay in the time taken from detection to weapon launch that has now been largely overcome, now the limitation lies more in the number of weapons that can be launched from a ship.” “We will continue increasing the bands [S-, X-, L- or C-band mentioned] in which the technology can operate as well as the processing power within the phased arrays, but we will also continue to develop different configurations including a smaller and lighter version that can go on land vehicles.”

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... sor-system
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply