• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
753
Points
1,060

T26​

Vice-Admiral Sir Chris Gardner, Director General (Ships) at DE&S confirmed the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow was 12 months behind schedule. This has been caused by three main issues: COVID, “Inadequate engineering maturity” and problems with the supply chain.

While the impact of COVID was unavoidable, the engineering issues are harder for BAE Systems to explain. The five OPVs built in Glasgow at an inflated price were supposed to subsidise the yard to re-baseline its shipbuilding skills. After the serious construction mistakes with HMS Forth, promises were made that “lessons would be learned” and BAES were also very keen to highlight how its digital shipyard technologies would drive efficiency. The 10-year construction plan for HMS Glasgow was already pretty leisurely. An optimist might hope that if the integration work at Scotstoun goes more smoothly than the construction phase, the ship could still meet the 2026/7 delivery schedule.

The supply chain issue mainly relates to the late delivery of the gearboxes built by David Brown Santasalo in Huddersfield. As long-lead items, the development of these sophisticated and ultra-quiet gearboxes has been underway for many years, including constructing a land-based test rig. Late delivery meant HMS Glasgow was rolled out of the build hall without the gearboxes which had to be fitted by cutting the hull open and skidding them into place on the hard standing. The Defence Secretary said they had been in touch with the supplier [David Brown] and “read them the riot act” as their products are fundamental to the whole Type 26 project, including in Australia and Canada.

The MoD will contribute to the cost of the new covered build hall at the Govan shipyard, although BAES is expected to make the main investment. The new facility is intended to allow the construction of 2 complete ships side by side, negating the need for outside working and speeding up the delivery of the second batch of Type 26. Plans to extend the Shipbuilding Outfit Hall to the rear were thwarted by planning restrictions relating to historic buildings. A second option to drain the adjacent wet basin and build a separate larger hall on the site are in an early stage of planning and approvals.

An older update on the UK's type 26. It seems building warships is not easy and that subsidies are everywhere and that hopefully David Brown can get its act together as this is the entire point of its existence
 

torg003

Member
Reaction score
100
Points
580
When I look at that hull design I can't help but think, "RAMMING SPEED!!"

(that's assuming we are looking at the front end)
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,994
Points
1,040
France does a great job building ships that other people actually want to buy. Also having an assembly drydock with a retractable roof is a real beauty. They do a great job, really weird we don't work with them more closely. They have a slightly different crewing concept, but would be easier to adapt to compared to the USN model.

Plus their yards are in beautiful spots, so who wouldn't rather visit Toulon or Saint-Nazaire instead of the Clyde yards outside Glasgow? Much better food anyway.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
France does a great job building ships that other people actually want to buy. Also having an assembly drydock with a retractable roof is a real beauty. They do a great job, really weird we don't work with them more closely. They have a slightly different crewing concept, but would be easier to adapt to compared to the USN model.

Plus their yards are in beautiful spots, so who wouldn't rather visit Toulon or Saint-Nazaire instead of the Clyde yards outside Glasgow? Much better food anyway.
Ask the Australian's the ease of working with Naval Group.

Plus the cost of putting in American systems and weapons would put it over the top. I doubt they would even let us use CMS330 in their ships
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,994
Points
1,040
Ask the Australian's the ease of working with Naval Group.

Plus the cost of putting in American systems and weapons would put it over the top. I doubt they would even let us use CMS330 in their ships
The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.

The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.

So yes, successful at exporting ships.

Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.

The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.

So yes, successful at exporting ships.

Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?
The USN did not buy tbe French FREMM they v much on purpose purchased the Italian version.

I have read that the program was going badly for the Australians and they do blame Naval. But who knows

Ok not CMS330 current but Lockheed Martin Canada was given the contract for the CMS
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,689
Points
1,260
The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.

The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.

So yes, successful at exporting ships.

Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?

Is there any documentation about mechanical issues with FREMM ? I have deployed with them twice on SNMGs. Both times they continually have to return to port for repairs for something that's broken... One I think was a bent shaft.

Could just be new ships working out gremlins.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,994
Points
1,040
Is there any documentation about mechanical issues with FREMM ? I have deployed with them twice on SNMGs. Both times they continually have to return to port for repairs for something that's broken... One I think was a bent shaft.

Could just be new ships working out gremlins.
Nothing public that I'm aware of; pretty typical for new ships though. T45 and others had some of their own, and we have had the same.

We're now finding new class issues on the CPFs as we pass by the 30 year design life, lost track of the number of times someone said 'I've never seen that before!'

The nice thing with exporting basic design is you get a larger user base, so find problems faster, and learn from each other on the fixes. From what I can tell they seemed to have more common equipment on the mechanical side, and set up to allow different CSE loadouts and customizations, so that's usually pretty good. A lot of the CSE kit can be platform independent, so you can have things like the ESSM user group, but for things like engines, shaftline, hull etc that can be fairly specific to the platform.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
Nothing public that I'm aware of; pretty typical for new ships though. T45 and others had some of their own, and we have had the same.

We're now finding new class issues on the CPFs as we pass by the 30 year design life, lost track of the number of times someone said 'I've never seen that before!'

The nice thing with exporting basic design is you get a larger user base, so find problems faster, and learn from each other on the fixes. From what I can tell they seemed to have more common equipment on the mechanical side, and set up to allow different CSE loadouts and customizations, so that's usually pretty good. A lot of the CSE kit can be platform independent, so you can have things like the ESSM user group, but for things like engines, shaftline, hull etc that can be fairly specific to the platform.
Well the T-26 base design will be one of the larger classes of ships in the world. They are moving away from each other and it will be a toss up if all get built. But third largest build number in the world.

FREMM at 50 units (most USN which is almost a different ship)
Type 054A Frigate at 31 units
Type 26 at 22
Type 052 Destroyer at 20+
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
9,063
Points
1,140
Well the T-26 base design will be one of the larger classes of ships in the world. They are moving away from each other and it will be a toss up if all get built. But third largest build number in the world.

FREMM at 50 units (most USN which is almost a different ship)
Type 054A Frigate at 31 units
Type 26 at 22
Type 052 Destroyer at 20+
Uhm, other than the AB's that have 70 built, 7 under construction, and 12 more on order?
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
816
Points
1,040
Uhm, other than the AB's that have 70 built, 7 under construction, and 12 more on order?
Yes you are correct.

I was going for similar sized ships.

Even with the add of the Burks it puts the T26 in third for build.

Funny thing in modern ship classes same name very different ships from first to last. In the past I think the Burk build would be called 3 maybe 4 different classes. I think with procurement system in the west its easier to call something the same thing but build it different to the current requirements. F-18CD v EF, The LAV 3 v LAv6 etc. Even our T26 the first will very different from the last.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
128
Points
630
Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design?

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
297
Points
880
Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design?

I wouldn't think so we reduced the amount of VLS to 24 vice 32 and our radar and mast is not as heavy or tall.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
140
Points
710
Meanwhile first new US Navy Fincantieri FREMM-based frigate starts building. In Wisconsin. Sigh:


Mark Collins
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
9,263
Points
1,360
Meanwhile first new US Navy Fincantieri FREMM-based frigate starts building. In Wisconsin. Sigh:


Mark Collins
Embarrassed that I had to look up how an FFG would make it to the ocean from Wisconsin, then recalled the sliver of water leaving Green Bay…then did some GooleEarthing which led to the following question?

How does an LCS get up into what looks like a parking lot with no apparent rail/crane assembly to be seen? 🤔

Dropped pin
 
Top