Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate

[H_K]

We don't know the reasons for the RCN switch from CAMM to RAM at present. But there are European decoys present on the CSC.

According to Naval News, following the advice of Navsea the Canadians have had to ditch customizations like CAAM, European decoy launchers and their own CMS in favor of the Aegis baseline with SPY-6, SEWIP, Nulka etc.

The Dutch ASWF specifically uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps.

But no Standard missiles, which require Aegis fire control loop (at a minimum) and US radars (or CEAFAR).

 

[kqcke for you]

Artisan gets trashed by a lot of people around the antenna...what they don't appear to realise is that the internal components are world class.

There also looking to enhance its performance even more like the capability to track ASBM. It also shouldn't be to hard to develop an upgrade for it with GaN or higher RPM if there paying (doesn't need to be only norway or UK).

The Norgies want an ASW focused vessel...and they want it in the water at a certain point. Plus if they want to upgrade the radar at a later point they can do. They want a vessel in the water more than anything....although given the Fridtjof Nansen Class will be at most 24 years old in 2030, and they can't man them all at present I do wonder if a little slippage can be accommodated...they don't want the expense of an MLU, particularly for SPY-1F, but a lot of the class have had a similar life as Type 45, not as many sea days as you'd expect, even with the loss of the Helge Ingstad.

There also isnt enough fleet to begin with which ask for fleet protection capabilitys and non of them do ABM really considering what it takes too hit norway.

They want commonality with key allies...for Norway doing ASW in the high north that puts the RN way out in the lead. They're partnered with Germany for 212CD. The only other candidate right now would be the Netherlands, but ASWF is, according to some, already out of the competition.

Well and whatever germany is overing (which brings back the US problem) but there only so many options and compromises you can take.

The Dutch ASWF specifically uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps. ESSM (and perhaps RAM) might have been seen as an advantage at one point, but I'm not sure now...suspect the German's with F126 and F127 will also be looking with some nerves at their choices as well at present...

Considering RAMs development there shouldn't be any problems as it isn't a sole US developted wepaon.

 

[kqcke for you]

According to Naval News, following the advice of Navsea the Canadians have had to ditch customizations like CAAM, European decoy launchers and their own CMS in favor of the Aegis baseline with SPY-6, SEWIP, Nulka etc.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898726508388110515

View: https://x.com/xaviervav/status/1898726508388110515
Translation:
" So far, it's mostly the opposite that has happened:
The RCN requested assistance from the USA/NAVSEA to manage the CSC program. Result: Quite a few European systems, although chosen by the Canadian Navy (following calls for tenders), were landed:
This is the case of Safran's NGDS or MBDA's CAMM.
Reason given: Incompatible with AEGIS system.
Originally, Canada "only" purchased the SPY-7 radar and the "Aegis fire control loop" and took care of the integration into their local CMS (CMS 330) locally.
But since NAVSEA's involvement, it has become a 100% Aegis Baseline 9 ship, managed by the US.
(ource: several people "close to the case") "

But no Standard missiles, which require Aegis fire control loop (at a minimum) and US radars (or CEAFAR).

Neither have F-124, De Zeven Provinciën-class and Iver-Huitfeldt-class (but i believe neither Had Zumwalt...). Funny that all are ICWI user.

 

[zen]

There is no logical reason why CAMM cannot integrate to Aegis. It's purely digital and sensor agnostic.
That's why it integrated into Patriot just fine.

I smell BS masquerading as 'technical', and qhat lurks behind that is industrial concerns to lock in Aegis customers to US weapons.

 

[kqcke for you]

There is no logical reason why CAMM cannot integrate to Aegis. It's purely digital and sensor agnostic.

Could be a time and budget think. I mean the first 3 ships alone cost $22.2 billion thats only ⅕ of total ships while already ~1/3 of the budget.

 

[H_K]

Neither have F-124, De Zeven Provinciën-class and Iver-Huitfeldt-class (but i believe neither Had Zumwalt...). Funny that all are ICWI user.

My understanding (from Dutch press reports) is that what was possible 30 years ago with older SM-2 variants using ICWI and Apar radars is no longer possible with the newest SM-2 blocks or with SM-6.

Not necessarily because of any physical integration issues but because it requires access to the Aegis code which the US doesn’t want to provide. If you look at new frigate designs they are all using Aegis. (Likewise they have no incentive to integrate foreign missiles like CAAM but there might be work arounds since Japan and other countries have their own missiles).

 

[kqcke for you]

My understanding (from Dutch press reports) is that what was possible 30 years ago with older SM-2 variants using ICWI and Apar radars is no longer possible with the newest SM-2 blocks or with SM-6.

Well it kinda is. I mean WE know that they have an JUWL/ ICWI guidance kit developted for SM-2 Block IIIa specific for Zumwalt and it shouldn't be too different from APAR. That said (assuming no modifications for apar are needed) we still need to pay for the adaptation into SM-2 Block IIIC(U) and SM-6.

Not necessarily because of any physical integration issues but because it requires access to the Aegis code which the US doesn’t want to provide. If you look at new frigate designs they are all using Aegis.

While i don't know about the AEGIS code part nor have i heard of it before. But if you look at those ships they either were AEGIS user already or didn't have any alternative variation at home. The only one who doesnt fit is germany with F-127. That said the CDS is old , very problematic and developing a new system would take a lot of time.

(Likewise they have no incentive to integrate foreign missiles like CAAM but there might be work arounds since Japan and other countries have their own missiles).

Yeah so it isn't a definitiv problem that said i would assume its probaly a cost and security question. Also no other user had a missile before that would have made sense to integreate...

 

[MihoshiK]

The Dutch ASWF specifically uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps. ESSM (and perhaps RAM) might have been seen as an advantage at one point, but I'm not sure now...suspect the German's with F126 and F127 will also be looking with some nerves at their choices as well at present...

The ASWF uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps., because it's wayyyy too late in the design processs to go to anything else right now. But I'm sure that the powers that be are kinda wishing they had a bit more time for getting these ships in the water right now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The ASWF uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps., because it's wayyyy too late in the design processs to go to anything else right now. But I'm sure that the powers that be are kinda wishing they had a bit more time for getting these ships in the water right now.

ESSM is a NATO missile, there's factories in Europe making it.

I'm not sure what missiles exist at MBDA or whoever that are in the RAM class.

As for the torpedoes, I expect that there's a NATO-standard data plug so any incorporation of other 12.75" torpedoes would be a matter of software, not hardware.

 

[starviking]

Could be a time and budget think. I mean the first 3 ships alone cost $22.2 billion thats only ⅕ of total ships while already ~1/3 of the budget.

I would assume that’s because research, design, and fabrication setup costs are being loaded onto those first ships.

 

[Cordy]

The ASWF uses ESSM, RAM and Mk.54 Torps., because it's wayyyy too late in the design processs to go to anything else right now. But I'm sure that the powers that be are kinda wishing they had a bit more time for getting these ships in the water right now.

I would have thought you could argue the opposite for new build and they could possibly fit European missiles and torpedoes if unable to obtain ESSM and RAM from European factories as ASWF comes equipped with Thales Nederland X/S dual band radar - APAR Block II X-band and SeaMaster 400 S-band (which suggest looks more capable than the Connie radar with only the 3 sided SPY-6(v)3 S-band, no X-band) and the new gen Above Water Warfare Suite, Thales had a large success with their previous gen TACTICOS CMS.

 

[Ainen]

ESSM is a NATO missile, there's factories in Europe making it.

I'm not sure what missiles exist at MBDA or whoever that are in the RAM class.

CAMM

 

[kqcke for you]

I would have thought you could argue the opposite for new build and they could possibly fit European missiles

Not without replacement of the VLS

and torpedoes if unable to obtain ESSM and RAM from European factories as ASWF comes equipped with Thales Nederland X/S dual band radar - APAR Block II X-band and SeaMaster 400 S-band (which suggest looks more capable than the Connie radar with only the 3 sided SPY-6(v)3 S-band, no X-band)

Its very likely to be not more capable as those radar overlap mostly. Now the Spy-6(v)3 is a more fleet and ABM based design while the X/S Suite is supposed to create the optimal field for ASWF. Afterall An/Spy-6(v)3 is an modernised and mini An/Spy-1D(V). What it does allow you is more efficient use of the radar as you only need APAR for combating those missiles. That said as it wont carry anything more than ESSM anyway and the ASW USV for it doesn't even have any missiles. The MSS USV is for LCF.

 

[Cordy]

Not without replacement of the VLS

Possible option includes CAMM soft vertical launch missiles which expect easier and cheaper to install than the Mk41 VLS, cells, even Lockheed offer the option of ExLS for CAMM, and deck launchers for ASCMs, whether the US kit under Trump is the better option is now open to question if no longer cannot be relied on to supply European NATO Navies

Its very likely to be not more capable as those radar overlap mostly. Now the Spy-6(v)3 is a more fleet and ABM based design while the X/S Suite is supposed to create the optimal field for ASWF. Afterall An/Spy-6(v)3 is an modernised and mini An/Spy-1D(V). What it does allow you is more efficient use of the radar as you only need APAR for combating those missiles. That said as it wont carry anything more than ESSM anyway and the ASW USV for it doesn't even have any missiles. The MSS USV is for LCF.

Think the lack of a new gen high definition X-band radar is a shortfall in the capability of the Connie, not even the old gen AN/SPQ -9B which still fitted to the Burke Flt IIIs, USN as far as know has not as yet funded the Future X-Band Radar to replace it.
Doubt the SPY-6(v)3 has any ABM capability as its aperture too small at 6 feet to give the necessary difffraction beamwitdth to control a SM-6 at range.

 

[kqcke for you]

Possible option includes CAMM soft vertical launch missiles which expect easier and cheaper to install than the Mk41 VLS, cells, even Lockheed offer the option of ExLS for CAMM, and deck launchers for ASCMs, whether the US kit under Trump is the better option is now open to question if no longer cannot be relied on to supply European NATO Navies

Considering that we talked about a situation where we can't get ESSM getting something like ExLS seems just as unlikely. Using the old soft launcher will result in removing the VLS so no easy task at all but it can free up some space. In sutch an case the use of CAMM-ER should be the goal. In sutch case the integration deck launcher based Barak-ER next to NSM could also be an interresting thing but not without problems.

Think the lack of a new gen high definition X-band radar is a shortfall in the capability of the Connie, not even the old gen AN/SPQ -9B which still fitted to the Burke Flt IIIs, USN as far as know has not as yet funded the Future X-Band Radar to replace it.

From what i can tell the An/Spy-6 is more capable than the SM-400 or atleast based on official documents. Which is why i said there not more capable or in this case each excel in other regions.

Doubt the SPY-6(v)3 has any ABM capability as its aperture too small at 6 feet to give the necessary difffraction beamwitdth to control a SM-6 at range.

Im pretty sure it had but after looking by Raytheon themself i couldnt find anything too it so i probaly was wrong about that.

Anyway we should get back too Type-26

 

[TomS]

CAMM

Closer fit might be IRIS-T SLS. The larger SLM is already being tested for naval use, but SLS in fixed angled launchers would make an excellent PDMS, I think.

 

[SK2]

CAMM

I have the temptation of typing Sea Cat!

MICA NG with A35 VLS launcher in reality, while CAMM can be launched by BAe VLS launchers also. Remotely, the sea-based version of Iron Dome?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would assume that’s because research, design, and fabrication setup costs are being loaded onto those first ships.

The way the USN does it, all R&D costs are loaded onto the first ship of a class, instead of being split across however many ships get built.

 

[dan_inbox]

The way the USN does it, all R&D costs are loaded onto the first ship of a class, instead of being split across however many ships get built.

Well, this is kind of an obvious necessity. You cannot very well wait for up to 20 or 30 years to see how many will finally be built and close this year's accounting books...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, this is kind of an obvious necessity. You cannot very well wait for up to 20 or 30 years to see how many will finally be built and close this year's accounting books...

Or you write the R&D as a separate expense entirely.

 

[zen]

Old soft launcher?

Land Ceptor uses soft launch as well and neither be Sea Wolf cells.

If you have such cells, you don't need VL silo systems like mk41 or Sylver.

 

[dan_inbox]

Or you write the R&D as a separate expense entirely.

Which sure makes sense, and is actually what businesses do with R&D for "productive assets".
But for weapons system, it would completely void the notion of cost of a system, which here is the point for the political decision making.
Still very imperfect, but less void.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which sure makes sense, and is actually what businesses do with R&D for "productive assets".
But for weapons system, it would completely void the notion of cost of a system, which here is the point for the political decision making.
Still very imperfect, but less void.

It still makes a class that had been planned for 30something and gets cut down to 3 ships grossly expensive, and irrationally so.

If the ship class is canceled, all that R&D money has still been spent.

 

[timmymagic]

Old soft launcher?

Land Ceptor uses soft launch as well and neither be Sea Wolf cells.

If you have such cells, you don't need VL silo systems like mk41 or Sylver.

Everyone forgets that. The missile canister is the VLS for CAMM. You could literally stick it on deck with some scaffold holding it vertical, plug it in and it would work. And we know that the UK Soft Vertical Launch System from canisters is posited to be capable of at least 250kg. We're presuming, based on the little information to date, that CAMM-MR will be heavier. But they've stated that 2nd stage boosters and soft launch are being considered so perhaps that 250kg mentioned was not hard and fast (CAMM-ER is 160kg, I think we're all assuming that MR is at least double).

 

[dan_inbox]

If the ship class is canceled, all that R&D money has still been spent.

True, and completely irrelevant to the accounting issue.
Once spent the R&D money is gone, whichever way the Navy books it.

The point is, if you book it separately it will look like an asset, ie something that theoretically the government could sell and get some money for it. Which would be false and misleading in most cases.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It still makes a class that had been planned for 30something and gets cut down to 3 ships grossly expensive, and irrationally so.

If the ship class is canceled, all that R&D money has still been spent.

The point is, if you book it separately it will look like an asset, ie something that theoretically the government could sell and get some money for it. Which would be false and misleading in most cases.

It's not that one approach is wrong and the other right... it's that they serve different purposes.

It's important to know that it'll cost £10 billion to build eight SHOOTY class battlesloops, for an average cost of £1.25 billion per ship. It's also important to know that you'll need to spend £5 billion to get SHOOTY in the water. It's just as important to know that if if you want to change the size of the order, it'll (probably) cost more than £1.25 billion per ship, but less than £5 billion per ship.

Not all of the non-recurring expenditure is R&D, either - there'll be things like jigs that physically exist, and are needed to build the first ship, but which will be used for all subsequent ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

True, and completely irrelevant to the accounting issue.
Once spent the R&D money is gone, whichever way the Navy books it.

The point is, if you book it separately it will look like an asset, ie something that theoretically the government could sell and get some money for it. Which would be false and misleading in most cases.

Not necessarily.

Let's pick on USS Narwhal SSN-671 for my example. The 100th submarine since Nautilus, she was supposed to be a "how quiet can we make a sub" technological tour-de-force. The SSN-21 Seawolf of the 1960s/1970s.

• Basic hull form was Sturgeon-class/Albacore, but was 16" bigger in diameter (33ft instead of 31'8") and ended up some 13 or 23ft longer (due to much longer main engine).
• But she had a completely different engine room and steam turbine (singular, and low-RPM direct drive so no reduction gears, but that main engine was something like 24ft in diameter and had like 80 stages to get all the energy out of steam while spinning <350rpm so was much longer than dual high-speed turbines plus reduction gears. IIRC the hull diameter increase was to make enough clearance around that monster main engine).
• S5W reactor modified for Natural Circulation, with low power Reactor Coolant Pumps. Scoop seawater system for the main condensers that when clean could keep the reactor cool as slow as 4-5 knots crawl!

All of which could have been applied to other ships after her. Well, probably one part would need some serious modifications, the scoop main seawater system to remove pumps apparently violated SubSafe, required pipes too large.

I believe the natural-circulation reactor data ended up being used on the Ohio-class, maybe Seawolfs (it's rumored they have NC reactors), and now both Columbia-class and Ford-class.

Probably only the long-hull Sturgeon-class (SSN-678 through 687) and Los Angeles class could have taken advantage of the Narwhal technologies.