Type 26 NAVAL COMBATANT concepts are not going to change. PART 2 will mainly show changes in the weapons, electronics and masts for the RCN's Type 26 Canadian Surface Combatant and is ready NOW!
Canada, NZ, Australia and the UK should have their own alliance with free trade and freedom of movement, once the UK are free of the EU, with a combined military second only in power to the USA, which will be our closest allie #CANZUK. Australia could really benefit, with its proximity and eventual clash with China. It makes much more sence for an English speaking alliance, than a European alliance.
Geoff Sheehan the commonwealth games are still popular. I disagree that it means little, it has been successful in keeping the bonds of the mentioned countries tight
ngatimozart the Kiwi government is probably worse then the Canadians in terms of complacency towards the Military, Canada still contributes to the 5 eyes, NZ is a token member. The NZ talks big and delivers very little other then embarrassing NZ whenever she comes to Australia. We don’t need NZ you aren’t our “ cousins “ or friend and less we have to do with you the better!
The UK did well with this ship. I can't remember a British ship that has had as much export success as this one in recent times, with more potential buyers in the future. Even the United States were seriously considering it, only turning it down because it wasn't a U.S vessel.
It being British wasn't the problem. Two out of the four remaining contenders for FFG(X) are based on European frigates. The problem was that it couldn't meet the Americans' schedule nor (if you can believe it!) the budget. The FFG(X) project is essentially a crash program to get 20 fast escorts with much better survivability and warfighting characteristics than the LCS, the last 20 of which have been cancelled and FFG(X) funded from the money that released. As such, FFG(X) is on much stricter timelines than either the Aussies' SEA5000 or Canadian Surface Combatant projects - and it needs to be able to deliver each hull at a comparable price to an LCS. The T26 is impressive but that is exactly the problem - it is a very high spec ship that cannot realistically be built in the time required with the money available to the FFG(X) project.
@Arsene Who? I think it was made clear that "not American" wasn't a factor. They would be built in America no matter who designed it. Besides, do you know how much stuff BAE sells to the US military? Your statement simply doesn't hold water.
America chose the FREMM, a European design. The Type 26 was excluded from competition because it is a new design and the requirements called for a proven design, namely a design with operating ships.
@@valenrn8657 Well, yeah, that's one of the main reasons FFG(X) is happening. I was talking about why T26 wasn't a contender for that competition (i.e. that it probably couldn't meet FFG(X) tight timeframes and budget). Can you explain your point a bit more? LCS's well known shortcomings aren't being contested by anyone here.
Hi John. I really enjoyed this run through of the various versions of the Type 26. Great job. Just for clarification, your graphic at 4.43 show's the Australian Hunter's as having 32 VLS. This is a strong rumor for sure. I have also seen 48 VLS mentioned. The Australian Navy hasn't confirmed or really mentioned the actual number. Also on the RAN webpage for Hunter class, it does say Advanced Anti Ship Missile. I can only assume that Harpoons are out but a more modern and advanced ASH is in. Also the Radar for the Hunter's is CEAFAR II, not Aegis. Aegis will the ships CMS. And the tactical interface will be a SAAB Australia Interface. Interesting to see that all three of the variants have gone with a different radar and CMS. I presume it reflects National Industry interests but i would love to see what the actual pros and cons of the 3 different radars and CMS are. It's difficult to find out much information about CEAFAR II. The RAN also says that the ships will have VDR. Look forward to your next update.
Geoff Sheehan our Australian hunter class is still having design decisions made we haven’t even begun laying out the steel for them but ceafar ll is meant to be next generation when it comes to radar and may even be implemented into aegis ashore but nevertheless all ships are very powerful and are the top of their class and may even be a good rival to admiral gorshkov which Russia persistently claims that the type 26 is based of which it’s not but I’m more concerned with China and the scs stay safe stay healthy
@@getstuffed2391 The UK version is using a different VLS from what I understand for the sea ceptor missiles. The mark 41 vls can also quad pack the evolved sea sparrow and so it can run 32 ESS's and 24 big missiles for the same amount as the UK T26. We also have the 3 hobart classes that have 48 x mk41 VLS's that can have up to 96 missiles with quad packed ESS's.
Craig Simpson I know but what confuses me is the hunter class is said to have more mk 41 than the Hobart which is really making me question our choice on design the American arleigh Burke has 96 mk 41 meaning Australia has to deploy all 3 Hobarts just to match 1 of the arleigh Burke’s which was the competition for Navantia’s design but alas politicians made the decision and 800 million was saved for no good reason but to pay drug addicts on Centrelink and we really needed to go with the arleigh Burke because we are upgrading our harpoons to the lrasm program which take up a whole cell and we are also adding sm 6 to the mix which cannot be quad packed so now our ships will have a mix of evolved sea sparrow for close range and highly agile missile sm 2 for medium range and light attack boats maybe sm 3 for anti icbm sm 6 for long range anti air capabilities and also light anti ship warfare and tomohawk for anti ship and land attack capabilities and hobarts only carry 48 missiles yeah the Americans are becoming a much better option every day
@@getstuffed2391 Arleigh burke requires 303+ personnel. Hobart requires 186. Arleigh Burke is not designed for a navy with limited personnel issues. As I said before our mark 41 vls can quad pack ESSM missiles as well.
@@getstuffed2391 Arleigh Burke class has two Mk41 VLS clusters i.e. front 32 cells VLS and rear 64 cells VLS. Hobart class only has one front 48 cell Mk41 VLS cluster. Hunter class (Type 26)'s mission bay could be modified for the second VLS cluster if there's a need for it, hence the extra flexibility. Type 4X is based on Type 26 with AAW bias.
Great Info on the type 26 thanks. Still surprised at the cost of these ships. £1.7bn for RN ones. Works out more expensive than our type 45 destroyers. Shame bae. Control 95% UK ship building in UK
John, good effort, but some changes. Janes confirms that the Canadian Type 26 will be configured with 6 ExLS launchers quad packed with CAMM missiles at the back between the sat domes above the mission bay, so the Canadian version will have 24 or 32 x M41 cells (not confirmed yet how many) and 6 x ExLS cells with 24 CAMM missile (confirmed) - likely this will displace the CWIS (not confirmed).
To amplify on BJS's CMS comment, which is entirely correct, it will be CMS330 plus elements of the Aegis common source library. So, Canada will join the Aegis club with these ships.
@@steved2602 The first one is delivered to the Coast Guard, The second is floating and being fitted out at the Lonsdale yard, the third is still in assembly - not launched yet - looking pretty complete from afar though.
Great video, however, the slide at 4:48 is incorrect. The RAN Type 26 will have 8 desk mounted canister anti-ship missiles, of which type has not yet been determined. There is speculation that the missile will be long range and have land attack capability - perhaps Naval Strike Missile or the next version of Tomahawk.
Thanks for your comments. I am working on update #12. I research all comments for verification and make changes as necessary. Unfortunately, I have not received any reply from BAE engineering, or the RN, RCN and RAN. I assume that secrecy clauses in contracts limit what information they can release at this time.
@@sherwood7259 Whilst not from BAE, this is a most reputable site. www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-navy-is-undergunned-for-denying-long-range-attackers/
@@sherwood7259 RAN Type 26's 8 "advance anti-ship missiles" mounted canisters was mentioned in a video from www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffg (time stamp 1: 02)
@@Ben-yt2rv The problem with the aspi strategists is that they think we have a US military sized budget for our military. Of course we are undergunned which is why we have the anzus treaty. The US are obligated to assist us as we have assisted them since WW2. In any case we have ordered 200 LSARM's which should fill out a couple of our navy vessel nicely for long range attack.
@@sherwood7259 John, this is a repost of a comment I made in the defence talk forum I wanted to try and unravel how much the PBO (from link in post 1875) actually thinks the build cost for the CSC will be. This was not really necessary as they list the individual build cost on page 19 as $1.9B Canadian in 2019 dollars. This is not the true cost however. The budget includes HST of 15% (so they are charging themselves 15% more and then giving the extra money back to themselves - in normal business this is called a kickback, I've had suppliers try that game with me - they don't last as suppliers of mine). So the actual cost is $1.65B. This is in CAD, since most references are in USD, the conversion is $1.24B USD (using 75 cents US:100 CAD). For comparison, the Burke is estimated to cost $2B each. The $69.8B total cost is broken down to $5.3B preproduction cost, $53.2B production cost and $11.4B post production (spares etc). So how does $1.9B each inflate up to $53.2B for 15 ships? First off, that is the 9th ship cost, not the first ship cost, and there is an assumed 77.5% learning curve, meaning every doubling of the number of ships the cost is reduced by 77.5%. So the cost for the individual ships is: 1 4.26B 2 3.30B 3 2.85B 4 2.56B 5 2.36B 6 2.21B 7 2.08B 8 1.98B 9 1.90B 10 1.83B 11 1.76B 12 1.71B 13 1.66B 14 1.62B 15 1.57B On top of this, they are not reporting in 2019 dollars, they are reporting in then year dollars. This would not typically be done by any business and most people do not understand it. It is done by the govt so that they do not have to adjust spending bills every year for inflation. Inflation is assumed to be 1.1% above the CPI inflation of 2.1% for 3.2% total. The 1.1% is a military shipbuilding premium based on historic costs. The PBO assumes the first ship will start in 2024 and be delivered in ~2025, with the last ship delivered in 2043; a 20 year program (I had to guess on the first delivery date and had to use 2025 to reproduce their numbers). once the inflation is added to the 2019 cost, the total cost comes out to $53.2B So govt math makes 1.24B USD (comparative cost) turn into 3.55B CAD. They post this and everyone in Canada says "why don't we just buy a Burke, it would be only 2B for a way better ship". But if you do the same math on the Burke you actually get 5.73B each.
Seeing as the RCN will have the AN/SPY-7 AEGIS derivative as its main radar, I think Canada ought to stretch the design and add a bit more Mk.41 VLS tubes to accommodate both AAW and cruise missiles for land attack as well as additional generators for future energy weapons upgrades/additions. Ideally it would also have enough space to store, launch, and recover UAV/UCAVs
@roger that I'm a proponent of building large capital ships like the Russians. You don't necessarily have to arm them fully now but design them really big so you have the option of upgrading them in the future and replacing worn out hull sections.
The issue is that Canada doesn’t continuously build ships of this size, and certainly not military ships. They are only built every generation or two so the knowledge gets lost every time after a series of ships is built. Even the capability to build the ships is lost and shipyards have to be upgraded in order to perform the work, which may take a couple of years itself. The first ship or two takes the longest time, and has the poorest quality, because the workers are learning the skills required to build large (for Canada) military ships. Unfortunately there isn’t the political will to make the right decision and offshore some of the work in building the ships. Even the design work is being done in Canada. We licensed the design from the UK but a ship design and building firm from Canada is leading the project to make changes to the design and build the ships. The people on the project are going to have to learn the ship and then make changes to it. Ideally Canada would outsource the building of the basic ship and systems to one of the three or four countries that have excelled in ship building and then bring it back to Canada where the electronics, weapons, and secret systems could be installed by our workers. There are many Canadian companies that excel at this type of equipment and these are the companies the government should be supporting. The country would get better quality ships for a lower price and would probably get them faster. It’s not that our workers can’t do the job but we don’t have a big enough navy and coast guard to keep ship yards always employed in order to retain valuable knowledge and skills.
2030s now due to design, logistical and budgeting issues. Not to mention the 4.3 billion spent in 2015 for the modernization of the halifax-class frigates.
These ships are pushing $6 billion CA ea, the US Constellation Class is approx $1.4 billion CA each and is similarly equipped so what are we getting for the extra $5 billion?
Building them in Canada and creating domestic jobs and capabilities. If we opted to have the British build these ships for us it would cost significantly less money, but we would lack the ability to maintain our fleet of Type 26 frigates domestically.
@@danlegris387 The engineers are Canadian and at the end of the project we will have shipyards capable of building ships that have a displacement of 8,000 tons and have the ability to maintain our own fleet of frigates. The benefits are still worthwhile.
@@danlegris387 Engineers still need to be involved with the actual construction of the project and the Canadian government spent over C$4B modifying the design because the original Type 26 City Class was an ASW ship with limited AAW capabilities. The deal also comes with technology transfer, so the British are teaching the engineers at our shipyards how to design and maintain a modern warship.
where it has always been on the maps... usually left off. The decision for the ANZAC replacements is at least 2 possibly 3 governments away... alot can happen between now and then
The main radar for Australia's Type 26 Hunter class is CEA Technologies CEAFAR2 with Aegis combat system and Saab 9LV tactical interface . Type 26 Hunter class has 2 x 4-canister "advanced anti-ship missiles" unknown type.
Ummmm... yeah. I like it! But... the speed. The Frigate also needs to be fast. I would think that 30kn would be a minimum. 32kn would be better. These things are expensive. It would be good if they could 'get away'.
I know right only 26 knots the queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier is faster then that so is the rest of the fleet meaning they would have to slow down for it
Speed given is the endurance speed , ie the speed the vessel can handle all day and night etc... most vessels can go faster at a burst and will be able to hold it for a short period of time but not all day and all night.
We are one, YES We are One, No problem. Now UKGB is out Yes out of Eu, Old Friends Are Back to Trade as one Has ONE, No Politics only Trade and Defence AS ONE.
Yes. After over 40 sterile years captivity, we Brits have at last wised up and realised who our REAL friends are, and always have been. It's a joy to be free of the loathsome EU and even better to be back with our own FAMILY. Hopefully then, our common future is now a close CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom) association of kindred nations. Not the Empire reborn but the free choice of four free and equal Peoples. "Twixt my house and thy house the pathway is broad, In thy house or my house is half the world's hoard; By my house and thy house hangs all the world's fate, On thy house and my house lies half the world's hate. For my house and thy house no help shall we find Save thy house and my house -- kin cleaving to kind; If my house be taken, thine tumbleth anon. If thy house be forfeit, mine followeth soon. Twixt my house and thy house what talk can there be Of headship or lordship, or service or fee? Since my house to thy house no greater can send Than thy house to my house -- friend comforting friend; And thy house to my house no meaner can bring Than my house to thy house -- King counselling King!" ('The Houses' Rudyard Kipling)
why? We learned from the Zumwalt and LCS fiasco and went with already proven design. If anything you guys should have joined the group FREMM purchase. Look at the RN T26 and then T31 program great mix $$$ and $$. CAN & AUS you're gold bricking at the wrong time ... But A for trying?
The Type26 is really a Destroyer, frigates but for absurd in house reasons RAN was told by government to apply the Destroyer moniker. These 26's have a max displacement of nearly x9000 tonnes, they are massive ship and although RAN originally demanded primary ASW capabilities the reality of an aggressive one frigate per month being punched out PLAN continuous build, south china sea, belt road, and China becoming very aggressive in the pacific region Australia wanted to add more flexibility to this class. Now the only reason Tomahawks are not fitted to the Hobarts is the government in it's infinite appeasing wisdom does NOT want to 'upset' the dictatorship in Beijing, but hey they're free to arm the shit out of their ships, their Type 55's are behemoths, akin to a Ticonderoga. And the second reason no TLaMs are armed is again the infinite wisdom of the Commonwealth Dept of Treasury FUBARING the spending. Now a strong MinDef would over ride this insanity, but since the idiot Pyne has finally thank God left, the most detested MP apart from Sarah sea patrol Hanson Young, Pyne to be objective did fast track many defence kits buys, several MOTS/FMS, but many have to go to tender to support Australian defence industry, procurement in Australia is a joke, you look at tiny city state Singapore's defence acquisition systems and it is shameful the ineptness and waste, duplication, the public servants who fuck up contract EVERY time a new one is signed. Eventually TLaMs WILL be armed for both the Hobart and Hunters but money needs to be put aside from the defence budget and outlays/defence appropriations need to be at least 2pc to GDP. The rise of China/PLAN will dictate realpolitik. The longer Morrison and his token female utterly useless MinDefs, yes there are 2 female MinDefs [one is defence industry and is not in Cabinet and is a junior Minister], the bigger the risk a Labor Government will come to power and that will throw EVERYTHING back to when the last Labor Government was in office and defence outlays fell to the lowest since 1938. Labor simply does NOT give a flying fuck about defence. They're all about wasting money on social policies. So at least these ships 'will' be built, and unlike the ANZAC Class that are now being upgraded again with a brilliant new CeaFar radar, the problem is the class cannot take any additional weaponry as in more VLS as the tonnage is now maxed out. These ships will have enormous opportunities for growth as their tonnage is huge. The specs top date are a pissy 32 VLS, and even with quad packed ESSM this is simply not enough. The Type 55's have around 120 VLS with a extremely good range of missile options. Hobarts as it is only have 48, a Burke Flight 2 has 96. The additional VLS is critical, the numbers are not enough. But hey, Russell and Government if not run by competent people who're willing to fight hard against Treasury are a systemic problem. The current MinDef is a joke, she got the role simply by virtue of her gender, NOT her knowledge, willingness to fight for real offensive capabilities, nor is she interested in nuclear subs. She is exactly what the leftist media love, WOKE, PC, of the left, and again a woman but she's out of her depth and simply is ensuring the programs [the big ones] the previous MinDef signed off on are finished.
Canadas navy has been pillaged for decades. And with the new threats from fighting terrorists with no intelligence, navy or airforce canadas defense has been gutted and the new weapons not capable in the new cold war. 2017 strong secure engaged was a good step but the Dnd and Parliament didnt realize how fast the new cold war was accelerating. Canada needs thesr Frigates soon, plus need minium of 4 fast Asw Destroyers or 1 to 2 aircraft carriers with anti submarine warfare helicopters/spy planes, jets. Also canada needs right away new submarines. Minimum 6 to 10 Attack submarines preferably Nuclear Attack submarines. Because Nuclear attack subs can sail across to Indian ocean and south china sea and also a nuclear attack sub can patrol the arctic under the ice then punch out the ice and launch an attack on land along with torpedo and intelligence our current subs cannot launch land attacks nore patrol the arctic or can travel massive distance with ease. Also need refueling ships landing crafts few amphibious ships like hovercrafts for arctic operations and deffiently need Nuclear arctic ice breakers for operating all our ships in the arctic. I hope canada can first finally acknowledge what canada needs and second realize that Canadas Defense policy Needs to be Updated Now. And last the procurement process needs to be fixed and accelerated or else Canada will lose its interests and possibly its land. Since canada cant defend against russia or china with its equipment currently and the Uk technically being the mother country but not helping militarly only offers help in trade which Canada doesnt want to give it. And Canada refuses to Allow the United states or Britan to Operate in Canadas arctic. And with china and russia eyeing the arctic and investing in arctic equipment for the last 2 decades Canada is fucked time is running out.
Really 1/4 of the ship taken up by the 'mission bay' for what, humanitarian and disaster causes, I thought it was a warship... jeez, give us more missiles, we still using harpoon and the new naval strike missile is 50% less of a warhead and less range than Harpoon blk II, its two steps forward and one step back, competition is using hypersonics with 500kg warheads while ours are subsonic with 150kg warheads, all that room on that tonnage and still underarmed, railgun is dead, laser going the same way, we are losing ground on Chinese and Russian technology. Hey its not all bad though, female sailors will have their own quarters..Gimme a break!
very well done, however speed DOES matter, especially if there is a torpedo in the water or if attached to a U.S. carrier group. And we should be buying twice as many, however we will be lucky to get what is allotted for before the liberals cancel the program.
wake up !aside from an 'aor' the cons/neocons have never built or bought a naval vessel except during WW! when there was a coalition war time government so as these were supposed to have been ordered over ten years ago....................
Witch one while our CPFs are old there most definitely not “fishing trawlers” and if your talking about the Kingston or orca class there coastal defence vessels and don’t go to rimpac
John Webber.....John many thanks for what is a seriously well put together video. Even if 'Canada specific' really. CEC will be a must with the RAN Hunter Class while I would not nail down that the RAN platform will only have x32 VLS, I can assure you BAE people I've spoken to have informed me verbatim after I asked them specifically about the number of VLS cells "just wait....just wait and see". I specifically wanted to try and get this information in the context of the PLAN continuous build cycle of their surface Frigate/Destroyer builds, while their new Type 55 which is a seriously large and capable/flexible platform. Rail guns most likely, thanks to IP/cyber/defence industry theft cannot be ruled out even with the USN's advances in this area. The Type 55 is a behemoth and I'd personally class it as a Cruiser akin to a Ticonderoga Class. And with respect to RAN the Hunters will be much larger than the Hobart Class, a poor choice for RAN but will not bother going into detail as that pardon the pun 'ship has sailed', suffice to say a straight MOTS/FMS Burke Flight 2 would have been the best, most capable option. Alas. The Hunter/Type 26 really is a Destroyer, it has a max displacement of up to x9000 tonnes and why RAN is going with a 'Frigate' bewilders many in defence but hey politicians. Why the RN do not have CEC is pretty pathetic. But costs were/remain the driver. But again many thanks again for what is for me the best video I've seen on this brilliantly schematically designed and capable ship, it is always a delight to see videos put up that are 'not' the slick Powerpoint/videos that are sold to Minister's by these defence behemoths. Well done mate.
Thanks for your comments. I am working on update #12. I research all comments for verification and make changes as necessary. Unfortunately, I have not received any reply from BAE engineering, or the RN, RCN and RAN. I assume that secrecy clauses in contracts limit what information they can release at this time.
Arleigh burkes require to much man power which the RAN has a limited amount of. This was why we went with the F100 design which isn't that bad considering it takes about half the personnel. Personally I think the type 26 is too much for us and we should have looked at BAE's type 31 proposal that uses only 80-100 persons but can still pack a punch. With this ship we could have had 18 new frigates.
Can't opt out what you haven't opted into... The decision for the ANZAC replacements is at least 2 possibly 3 governments away... alot can happen between now and then
@roger that I don't support CCP trade. www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2016/10/12/protectionism-may-be-rising-around-the-world-but-in-china-it-never-went-away/#5dc3f5df73da Protectionism May Be Rising Around The World, But In China It Never Went Away Promises unkept? Since joining the WTO in 2001, China has repeatedly insisted that it will live up to those undertakings made on entry. In particular, the use of currency manipulation has been identified by the US as a breech of the commitment to end price controls for the purposes of protecting domestic industries. This became a major political issue from 2005 onwards, and has only recently subsided because it is assumed that the RMB is slightly overvalued on the market. Nevertheless, for years it was deliberate policy for the PBoC to accumulate US Dollars and suppress the exchange rate for the RMB, resulting in exactly the price distortions China had committed to eliminate in 2001, and fuelling an enormous trade surplus with the US, which persists and expands to this day. Furthermore TRIPS implementation has been given some effect on paper, but has made little progress when it comes to 'enforcement.' This is (according to the WTO) as recently as February 2015, fully 14 years after TRIPS was supposed to be already in effect. The US Trade Representative produces an annual report to Congress on China's WTO compliance which leaves little room to conclude they have so far lived up to their accession commitments. The most recent several-hundred-page document - produced in December 2015 - recites a long list of small measures, committees established, announcements made and new administrative complications faced, all continuing disputes over an agreement theoretically in effect since 2001. Although, therefore, protectionism is rising around the world, it is also true to say that existing practices of protectionism have not fallen in the way that they should have since China's accession to the WTO in 2001. Because of this lack of progress in easing trade, the extended period of currency manipulation, the lack of observance of TRIPS and the sheer administrative resistance exporters face when trying to get their products into China, we now face of world of highly unbalanced trade, and rising mistrust. And it is this that is leading to rising protectionism; the simple fact that it never went away.
There are recent reports that GB is looking eventually to replace their type 45 AWDs with modified Type 26 combat ships once the contract of eight frigates is complete. That would provide continuity of work for the building industry and save a great deal of money in the process. I would think that Australia would be interested in participating in that endeavour as well as currently we only have three AWDs. The region in which we lives is seriously heating up due to an ever assertive China. In fact I believe Australia should consult with GB even now in the design faze since we might need to ‘upgun’ frigates under construction if military clashes become the norm.
At 24m30s, you say Canada has 12 warships which is not completely fair. We also have 12 kingstons and 4 subs and the new Harry TheWolf patrol icebreaker which is maybe in sea trial by now. But overall this is a nice video. Cheers!
@@jameson1239 It does not make them dissapear. We still have them. And to be honest, our newwest ship, the asterix is not even a warship, its a civilian cargo carrier modified. Most of our ships are garbage.
@@alpearson9158 dude look at there sea time they had 0 in 2019 as they were all down for repairs and were going to try to keep them in service until the 2040s they will end up costing more to keep functional then buying new homes ones Id bet on it.
Not a bad video.. a stroll through memory lane.. I would point out the following.. at min 17:27 that canister is not a chemical detector but the AN/ULR-501 (Sea Search). Developed by Condor, inherited by EDO, then ITT. detects and analyze hostile RF emissions.
Great presentation. A few things have changed since you made this. Canada has decided to include the British Sea Ceptor. I THINK (correct me if I'm wrong) that the radar will be the Saab Sea Giraffe. The other thing that has changed is that Covid 19 has set back everybody's schedule by one or even two years.
So a 6,000 ton ship has a main gun 1/2 the size of a tank cannon and a few 40mm guns? I thought these were going to replace the Duke class, looking at things from the video the Muli-role Dukes seem better armed on a smaller hull than their replacements, or am I missing something?
@@blacquejacqueshellaque6373 You do know 254mm is over 10" right? So what you on about??? If you mean the 5" well that's fine.. Several of the models predicted a smaller main gun, has it now been decided it will be 5" after all? If so its a good thing
@@k2apache60 The Type 26 all have a 5" main gun. You stated "So a 6,000 ton ship has a main gun 1/2 the size of a tank cannon". So I am wondering what you are smoking to make such a BS statement. That is all.
If a few knots of speed doesn’t matter (per earlier slide - can’t outrun a missile) - why is Canada going with the combined gas turbine Diesel engine? Wouldn’t diesel electric (or LNG electric per green movement) on its own be sufficient / cheaper to acquire and maintain (without turbine integration into the system)?
Australia should replace the Mk 15 CIWS with The Searam system and install 16 vls cells behind the funnel to allow the 32 cells forward of the bridge to focus on SM2 or SM6 along with VL LRASM. The rear 16 cells would cater for ESSM, and if only the UK had persisted with the development of a 155mm naval gun
Well they said the type26 was to have ballistic caperability and also since this video long range anti ship missiles . They are going to place as much as they can on these by the way they are talking, so in a way, these ships Wil be basically a destroyer in caperability. But let's wait and see.
@@manduck5884 You must have worked out by now that you're an idiot or is your IQ a bit of a sticky point when it comes to absorbing simple information?
