Jump to content

Type 26


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 5/1/2021 at 3:54 PM, lucklucky said:

They seem a waste of tonnage for RN. The Australian and Canada versions are properly armed.

that will be a first for Canada if they get built as envisioned 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 7:49 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its an ASW Frigate. If people want a Battleship they probably ought to go elsewhere. :)

No it is a feeble ASW destroyer. This is a proper -for the time- ASW destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruna-class_destroyer   

You make a ASW frigate of a 4-5000t  not  9000t . Type 31 should have been the proper ASW frigate if it had the right propulsion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 9:49 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its an ASW Frigate. If people want a Battleship they probably ought to go elsewhere. :)

Nobody builds ASW frigates anymore. Welcome to the 21st Century...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Colin said:

Interesting they choose the Italian 127mm for main gun. Maybe Vulcano ammunition and good memories from the old 127mm in Iroquois destroyers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are synergies as the contractors are connected as well. Plus it give the option of the extended range ammunition  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Yama said:

Nobody builds ASW frigates anymore. Welcome to the 21st Century...

The Asahi-class emphasizes on ASW in its design, although only two of them in the class, they entered service in 2018 and 2019. Technically catagorized as DD in JMSDF for destroyer. Frigate would be FF. Yet with a full load at 6,800 tons, its quite lighter then the Type 26 frigate (any version). Yet, they all have the same length though, at about 150 meters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yama said:

Nobody builds ASW frigates anymore. Welcome to the 21st Century...

Well they call it a Global Combat Ship, but its primary role is to hunt submarines. So.... Its an ASW Frigate, whatever its called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

https://cdainstitute.ca/timothy-choi-what-can-we-expect-from-the-new-csc-combat-ships/

A long but worthwhile article

In Canada we have two fleets that can’t be shared, being split between the Atlantic and Pacific. If we have fifteen ships that means eight on one coast and seven on the other. That creates a problem if only three of those are air defence destroyers because one of those coasts is going to have only one destroyer. If that destroyer goes in for its regular maintenance, then that coast is going to have no air defence vessels at all. So, the idea is—build all 15 of these ships to an identical standard in terms of both air defence and anti-submarine warfare so that they’re all interchangeable. If any of [them] become unavailable, then you have other options with the same capability to perform missions across the entire spectrum of naval warfare and maritime security.

snip

The CSC can be more accurately described as a destroyer replacement, rather than simply a frigate replacement. If it goes according to plan, we’ll be replacing our entire fleet of frigates with capabilities that go beyond what our original destroyers had, in terms of air defence, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare. The CSCs could potentially have the long-range air defence capabilities that are enabled by the latest radars available, as well as 32 Mark 41 vertical launch system cells (Mk 41 VLS). A few months ago, the Navy finally released details regarding how it wants to fill those vertical launch system cells.

snip

It’s one way of future proofing our frigates in terms of future combat capability. We’re not artificially restraining ourselves to smaller missiles out of a need for cost-savings. Of course, we should view this as more of a wish list. A lot of weapons could fill these missile cells, but it is uncertain whether all these missile types are included in the ammunition portion of the current CSC budget – so far only the SM-2 Blk IIICs are known to have been earmarked at a maximum of $500 million USD for 100 rounds, while a contract for an unspecified number of Sea Ceptors has also been signed. The CSC project is of course a political issue, and we don’t know if future governments would really approve additional weapon purchases, especially the Tomahawk, which Canadians may not be so receptive to in the RCN inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point of order - the missile is CAMM,  the weapon system is Sea Ceptor. Also, if it will take CAMM it can take CAMM-ER as well, provided they make the silo tall enough.

With CAMM-ER in development, there's some prudence in waiting to decide which to buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DB said:

Point of order - the missile is CAMM,  the weapon system is Sea Ceptor. Also, if it will take CAMM it can take CAMM-ER as well, provided they make the silo tall enough.

With CAMM-ER in development, there's some prudence in waiting to decide which to buy.

Does that make them CAMM ships??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
34 minutes ago, shep854 said:

Given that home waters constitute the N. Atlantic and Pacific, will they be good cold-weather sea boats?

Does not matter. Curren Canadian government believes in Global Warming, so probably they could even spec equipment for tropical waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2021 at 12:49 PM, shep854 said:

Given that home waters constitute the N. Atlantic and Pacific, will they be good cold-weather sea boats?

If the Type 26 design brief was the same as that for the Type 23, then the intent is for global operations. One would expect for it to deal with whatever the North Atlantic is supposed to throw at it.

Of course, it will have a different system fit, so masts and such may be quite different and weight distribution might make them behave differently.

It would be interesting to see whether they trade equipment weight off against range - the quoted SAM fit is quite heavy compared to the UK fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...