Comment by Ian Parker: This is good news for Canada and her navy. And, Despite arguments by some that the BAE Type 26 is a theoretical ship and thus should not be part of the Canadian Surface Combatant competition the above BAE Systems release suggests rather concrete steps are being taken to build it soon. I note that regrettably, some opinion makers have yet to point out that most of the foreign competitors for the CSC project are either foreign government owned or foreign government subsidized and that the national navies associated with these designs sole source their naval acquisitions to national companies allowing no competition. Finally, I note that it has not been commented on that all of the potential competing designs are essential "paper designs" as they all require modification to meet Canadian requirements.
5 thoughts on “Manufacturing of the Type 26 Global Combat Ships to start in summer 2017 | BAE Systems | en – Canada”
Surface Warship are Torpedo and Missiles Magnet….
WE need that 2% GDP on Canada’s Defense Asap!!! Trump Presidency WILL eventually soon enforce this statement for Canada.
10 New modern D.E. Subs for Canada like Germany’s Thyssend Kruup 212 model at 500 M each (only 28 Sailors to operated it)! WHY (please someone tell me here) waste up to 3 Billion dollars on “salvaging” those 4 old, rusted Flawed Victoria Class Subs that will never safeguard our Territorial water’s sovereignty? These German Subs 212/214 Class Subs are the best money can buy…Ideal for our Needs….Period.
Please read text below;
Keith Spicer • Canada’s Arctic claims
PARIS — One’s name was Rubis, her rival’s Trafalgar. The first was a French submarine, the second British. Neither sub class now guards Canada’s Far North sovereignty. Yet some 18 years ago, Ottawa almost decided to buy up to a dozen such nuclear-powered U-boats to defend its long-contested claim over the water and seabed of those vast polar territories in red on your map.
BY THE OTTAWA CITIZEN SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
PARIS — One’s name was Rubis, her rival’s Trafalgar. The first was a French submarine, the second British. Neither sub class now guards Canada’s Far North sovereignty. Yet some 18 years ago, Ottawa almost decided to buy up to a dozen such nuclear-powered U-boats to defend its long-contested claim over the water and seabed of those vast polar territories in red on your map.
Now Europeans gape as five nations press claims to “our” energy-and-minerals-rich Arctic seabed. They chuckle as a metre-high titanium Russian flag planted on the ocean floor panics our current prime minister into going north as our sovereignty goes south. They marvel at his surface-only Canadian response: a few, years-late coastal patrol ships, modest military and naval bases, and an amateur militia of Inuit “Rangers.”
Again Canada defends its North with bombast, symbols and long-to-happen half-reforms. It abandons effective presence on “its” Arctic seabed where the riches lie. Only under-ice nuclear subs can patrol there: this summer, HMCS Corner Brook, a second-hand diesel-electric submarine, travelled north, but couldn’t go far under the ice.
In recent days, I interviewed two key players in the late 1980s nuclear sub debacle. One Canadian, one French. Both agree that in renouncing nuclear-powered subs Canada missed more than the U-boat. It likely forever missed its chance of exercising the Arctic sovereignty it claims.
My first expert was Perrin Beatty, Brian Mulroney’s defence minister (1986-89). Beatty deplores the “lost opportunity” of the nuclear-powered submarines. “Now we have to play catch-up,” he says. In a 1988 speech outlining his White Paper on defence, Beatty argued that “the events of the past year (the crumbling Soviet Bloc) have served to confirm both the feasibility and the desirability of our building a small fleet of nuclear-propelled submarines … they will — for the first time — permit Canada’s navy to participate in the defence of the Arctic.”
U.S. navy and diplomatic chiefs, he notes, fought giving Canada the U.S. submarine technology. In spite of Mulroney-Reagan coziness, they never accepted Canada’s sovereignty over Arctic waters. And they thought Canadians too primitive to handle nuclear propulsion.
The Tories organized a competition between the French and British designs. But public pressure, featuring scary polls, convinced them that “nuclear” submarines would tag them as warmongers. With an election looming, they dropped the whole project. This delighted our Arctic rivals, especially the U.S. It enchanted Canada’s anti-military “peace community.” But it left Canada’s seabed open to year-round, under-ice patrols only by the U.S. and Russia — plus, in theory, Britain and France.
My second expert, Franois Bujon de l’Estang, was France’s ambassador to Canada (1989-91) at the height of the sub debate, then ambassador to Washington. He notes that in the Rubis-Trafalgar competition, Canada’s navy chose the Rubis in spite of bitter U.K.-U.S. opposition. France offered its technology “without restriction,” while the U.S. (owning the Trafalgar’s technology) would not relent.
After a three-year public debate, Mulroney sank the seabed subs for “budgetary” reasons. “Although lacking a smoking gun,” says Bujon de l’Estang, “I was always convinced that Washington’s pressures weighed heavily in this, and were likely decisive. The truth is, the U.S. didn’t want (and still doesn’t) Canada to be able to protect its own territory, especially the Arctic. (That’s why) they refused to allow transfer of the (U.S.-leased) Trafalgar technology. … With Russia’s pretensions,” he adds, “this is singularly timely … Canada certainly did miss the boat with the Conservative government’s 1990-91 decision.”
A final irony? The incidental alliance between a U.S. determined to stop Canada from exercising its northern sovereignty, and Canada’s left-leaning, anti-nuke nationalists. The latter muddied the debate by harping on “nuclear subs,” as though they were nuclear-armed, not nuclear-powered. In the end, our “nationalists” won the debate … and helped lose it for Canada. Washington, not Ottawa, still controls our Arctic, brazenly sending nuclear-powered subs through an ice-bound Northwest Passage Canada itself can’t use. Or even monitor — the bare minimum for sustaining a sovereignty claim.
Our main rivals now launch major efforts to explore, and later claim, links to the undersea Lomonosov Ridge — a 1,800-kilometre-long key to huge swaths of the Arctic seabed. The U.S. and Russia are sending undersea missions to explore and map the area. They will present their evidence to a United Nations Law of the Sea commission.
How much is sovereignty worth? Is that a question you could even imagine another French expert on sovereignty, Charles de Gaulle, asking? Beatty sums up Canada’s choice by quoting former Canadian vice-admiral Charles Thomas: “You can have as much sovereignty as you’re willing to pay for.”
So how much are we game to pay?
Fooling itself, but not the world, Canada still hopes to defend its vast, contested Arctic with little gestures, loud words and loose change.
Former Citizen editor Keith Spicer now lives and writes in Paris.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
D’un Canadien errant.
The Canadian Government (no matter what political organization is in power), would never be courageous enough to go for the “Nuclear Option” for our surveillance of our own Canadian Arctic Territory. although that is exactly what they would want. There are no other options with a “Conventional” Submarines now or in the for-see-able future that can do the job under the ice as a Nuclear Sub can do. It is great to say we will buy MALE Drones (Polar Hawks) from the U.S to patrol our Northern skies, but what about what’s under the ice. Even conventional submarines that are planned or being built by any of our allies will not be able to stay under the ice for long periods of time. I guess we will have to rely on our American friends to not only patrol our “own” territory with their own Nuclear Subs, but also make claim to them unilaterally as the Russians have already in fact said they will do. It’s too bad as we have our biggest resource base in the north be sabotaged by another country and there is nothing Canada can do about it now or in the future. So………..goodbye Northern Canada. I hope we are all happy with the results and don’t cry foul when it happens. We only have ourselves to blame. It is unthinkable that Canada would let this happen!
25 November 2016. The comment by BAE contains the huge caveat: “…subject to final contract negotiations with the UK Ministry of Defence.” And what has the MoD said? At a 20 July 2016 meeting of the British House of Commons Defence Committee, a senior official stated that the design development on the Type 26 was about 60% complete. Furthermore, on 13 September 2016, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon told MPs, “I am not prepared to sign a contract with BAE Systems until I’m absolutely persuaded that it is in the best interests and value for money for the taxpayer, and indeed for the Navy,” So, far from a done deal, in fact, the BAE statement amounts to no more than a paper pledge to cut steel on a paper warship. Finally, it should be noted that spokespersons for BAE have been making similar claims of imminent commencement of production over the past year or so.
Interestingly, on 26 April 2016 the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, wrote to the Shadow Secretary of Defence, Emily Thornberry, “I write in response to your letter of 22 April regarding press coverage of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship project. As stated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review and made clear by the Prime Minister in the House of commons, this Government is fully committed to the Type 26 programme and shipbuilding on the Clyde” . He further stated in the same letter “Nothing has changed since the SDSR was announced last November. We stated clearly in the SDSR that these ships are critical for the Royal Navy and that we are going ahead with eight Type 26 Anti-Submarine Warfare frigates. There is no question of that changing.” In July of 2016 the UK Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin MP stated: “Backed by Britain’s rising Defence budget, the Type 26 Programme will deliver a new generation of cutting-edge warships for our Royal Navy. Along with sustaining highly skilled jobs across the country,these latest contracts demonstrate continued momentum in the programme ahead of cutting steel next summer”. Moreover, on 4 November 2016 the UK Defence Secretary announced that that in the summer of 2017 steel would be cut for the first TYPE 26.
It would appear that the Defence Secretary had a change of heart and perhaps the media and others have overplayed their part.
There are so many new designs for warships out there and pros and cons with all of them. The Italians, Dutch, Germans and French each have multi-purpose frigates that can ‘do the job,’ but there is only one design for Canada that offers a balanced ‘plug & play’ approach. And that design seems to be the BAE Type 26 Frigate. It is a modern 7000+ ton warship with just about all the capabilities Canada would want in a naval vessel for the future. This is a true Canadian Surface Combatant that would be the centre of the future Canadian Navy that would, of course, be built in Canada. You can configure it for both ASW and/or ASUW very easily and ‘Canadianize’ it as our defence needs dictate. The major task would be to figure out what type of combat system would integrate best with this ship for Canada’s navy. It may only have one drawback — ice capability in our North. If it had a strengthened hull though, that would certainly help.