Procrustes, 26 June 2020.
A 26 June 2020 report from Australia indicates potential problems for the Australian Hunter-class variant of the Type 26 frigate.[1] The report suggests that the ship design has become longer and heavier, largely because of the proposed new phased array radar. The report goes on to say:
Defence industry sources said incorporating the radar, which is regarded as world leading, was proving problematic because of its weight and power consumption.
Unlike conventional radars, the data processing by the CEAFAR radar is done within the mast, making it very top-heavy. It also uses more power than standard radars.
One industry source said the frigate’s weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.
A larger vessel has several flow-on costs, including construction, needing extra fuel for sailing and the provision of wharf infrastructure.
Alternatively, the navy might need to accept lower capability to keep the boat close to the original design parameters.
“Australia purchased a design concept and the design is changing significantly, and that is going to increase risk to the program,” the source said.
Canada is in the process of procuring a similar Type 26 ship as its Canadian Surface Combatant, but will be incorporating an even newer radar, still to be developed for warship use and as yet untested, the AN/SPY 7 radar system, from Lockheed Martin.
Given that contract negotiations are still ongoing in Canada to nail down the final ship configuration and capabilities, we have to wonder whether similar weight and cost growth could occur here. This development bears watching.
References
- Andrew Tillett, “Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board,” Australian Financial Review, 26 June 2020.
6 thoughts on “Aussie Type 26 Developments: Possible Implications for Canada?”
The LM CSC Type 26 Frigate’s weight was always known to be around 8,000 tonnes and I believe that the naval version of the SPY 7 (V) 1 radar weight was always factored into the total tonnage of the ship. Here is what the facts are. The US SPY 1B radar weight below deck is roughly 12,400 lbs (that includes all cabinets) with the antennas on the mast weighing about 7,900 lbs which gives that radar a total weight of around 20,300 lbs or just over 10 tonnes total weight. The naval version of the SPY 7 (V) 1 total weight is unknown however it has fewer cabinets than the SPY 1B due to improved technology and lighter Phased Array Antennas (fewer Radar Module Assemblies-RMAs) on the mast. Yes, the CEAFAR 2 radar’s total weight on the Australian Hunter-class Type 26 I suspect is somewhat heavier than the naval SPY 7 (V) 1, but nothing that would bring the total tonnage of the Hunter-class anywhere near the industry source’s weight of over 10,000 tonnes which I believe to be extravagantly exaggerated for effect. The Australian Hunter-class Type 26 has a total weight of around 8,800 tonnes and even if the CEAFAR 2 radar’s weight (including RMA antennas) were factored in, it would more than likely not affect the ship’s speed or balance. Also, don’t forget the Spanish have also chosen the LM SPY 7 (V) 1 for its AAW system on the new F 110 class frigate which is slightly lighter (6,100 tonnes) than either the CSC OR Hunter-class. The Spanish don’t seem to be concerned about speed or balance. Therefore I see no implications that would affect either the LM CSC Type 26 or Australian Hunter-class Frigates. The AN/SPY 6 (V) 1 AMDR is a retrofit system for the Arleigh Burke Flt III ships. They have 37 Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs) on each Phased Array mast and would be much heavier. Similarly, the SPY 6 (V) 4 with 24 RMAs, being retrofitted on the Arleigh Burke Flt IIs. The AN/SPY 6 (V) 1/4 AMDR are each much heavier than either the Naval SPY 7 (V) 1 or the CEAFAR 2 Radar systems and are specifically designed for the Arleigh Burkes and newer USN Aircraft Carriers. The Japanese ‘land’ version and the US SPY 7 (V) 1 version in Alaska are all much heavier than any naval radar system and should not factor into the equation.
You make an interesting point about the weight of the LM Type 26 CSC always being 8,000 tons. Less than six months before the Bid Selection announcement (19 October 2018) in favour of the Type 26, senior Irving officials were telling groups touring their shipyard plant that they were looking at a winning design of approximately 5,500 tons. I assume this was a reference to the Total Ship Reference Point (TSRP) of the bidders – basically the in-service weights of the ships (except for the Type 26 which was still only a paper ship) entered into the competition. The Bid Concept Design (BCD) was the projected weight of the ships that Ottawa wanted the bidders to meet to satisfy the government’s Request For Proposal (RFP) requirements. This weight was always reported to be around 6,900 tons. Alion, in its complaint to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, always claimed that neither the Type 26 TSRP design nor its heavier BCD design would be able to meet Canada’s two ship speed conditions based on standard resistance and power calculations. Alion further stipulated that the single Type 26 Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine engine, which it will share for standardization reasons with the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, is rated at 36,000 kW maximum power. According to Alion’s studies, this engine was significantly under-powered to attain Ottawa’s stipulated speed requirements.
Why does all the foregoing matter? Canada has, for years, committed one surface combatant to a US West Coast carrier battle group. It has been widely reported that this CVBG regularly operates at 30+ knots because of the carrier’s nuclear powerplant. Canada’s current Halifax-class frigates are hard-pressed to keep up. But the new LM Type 26 CSC at 6,900 tons will not be able to stay in formation with the CVBG, and will totally incapable of doing so at 8,000 tons if driven by the RR MT30 gas turbine engine. This may no longer be a significant consideration for the Canadian Navy, and some analysts questioned the need for a 30-knot top speed from the outset of the CSC competition. And I suspect that in one of the 88 amendments to the original RFP, Ottawa simply lowered its speed requirements to allow the LM Type 26 to compete. However, the additional weight invariably means higher costs, so that aspect of any shift upwards to an 8,000 ton design could be of a concern.
Procrustes
Hi Procrustes! When I say 8000 tons, I’m referring to total load-out weight. The British City-class also has the same total load-out weight. BAE indicates they are confident the speed trials for HMS Glasgow will top out at 30+ kts at that weight. Who knows, the CSC Frigate may be the same or even better. The Halifax-class have an older style gas turbine and not as sophisticated as the new RR MT-30 with max O/P power of 40,000 KW each. The Queen Elizabeth-class has two of them because of her size, but mostly because she is not nuclear powered. Yes, the Halifax-class sometimes had difficulties keeping up with the carrier during plane-guard flying operations, not because the US carriers are nuclear, but because they are always doing fly-ops and must turn into the wind at speed to launch her A/C. If the USN carriers wanted to ‘cruise’ at 30+ kts all the time, they would have no problems doing that, however the Halifax-class would have to refuel much more often and then dash off to catch up with the carrier (and so would her USN escorts as the ABs are not nuclear powered as well). Only time will tell when the first CSC frigate does her sea trials. Cheers!
Another thought, the Arleigh Burkes Flt 11As are over 9,500 tons each and use 4 x General Electric LM2500 gas turbines at over 19,000 kw each giving total power O/P at 76,000 kw with spurt speeds of over 30+ kts. The RR MT-30 on the CSC at 40,000 kw each are comparable with total load-out weight of 8,000 tons.
It looks as if Japan has officially scrapped plans to deploy the ‘land-based’ SPY 7 (V) 1 radar systems for good. This however should not have any impact on the naval version of SPY 7 (V) 1 installations on the CSC Frigates or Spanish F 110 Frigate programs. See the article below:
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/06/5cd95541475a-breaking-news-japan-scraps-plan-to-deploy-aegis-ashore-missile-defense-system-kono.html
HMAS SYDNEY COMMISSIONED ST SEA. WHAT A GREAT IDEA!
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjfx4OO2anqAhXpoXIEHYA1A2gQtwIwAXoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBGJoZRlckpk&usg=AOvVaw2DfyRDUM4Gv8sKQ7MEu8M0