David Dunlop, 23 April 2021
Canada has just chosen the OTO Melara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun system from Leonardo for at least the first 3 CSC Type 26 Frigates. A contract was signed yesterday, 21 April 2021, with the Leonardo company for 4 of these gun systems (3 for installation and 1 for training). So what about the rest of the Frigates? Does this mean the other 12 CSC Frigates will receive the BAE MK 45 Mod 4 naval gun? Why not buy all 15 OTO Melara 127/64 LW gun systems for every CSC Frigate or does this mean just an initial purchase with other contracts to follow? The gun is certainly lighter than the MK 45 but most likely more expensive. Weight and cost seem to be an issue here. The Leonardo OTO Melara 127/64 LW Vulcano gun will also offer the CSC Frigates the ability to fire extended-range, precision-guided munitions – both in guided long-range and the ballistic extended-range versions, as well as conventional 5” ammunition. The purchase report can be seen below: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/leonardo-to-supply-12764-lw-gun-systems-for-csc-frigate-programme
6 thoughts on “CSC: Canada buys OTO Melara/Leonardo 127mm/64 LW gun”
Since the first 3 ships won’t be operational for at least a decade, it makes sense to buy a small batch to for now. Plenty of time to make changes, buy more. Eventually we’ll have 15 units for the ships, 1 on each coast for training and 4 spares.
This is a great purchase and superior to the MK 45.
The round for this gun comes already mated to the charge, whereas the MK45 is what’s called “dual ramming” where the charge and projectile only come together in the breech. This process is much more complex and leads to a lower rate of fire.
This gives us the opportunity to engage targets and support troops ashore approximately 100km inland with guided munitions with either GPS/laser terminal guidance. It’ll work really well for soft targets or buildings and will be capable against hard moving targets (tanks, IFVs and the like).
It has an automatic weapon handling system that allows it to select rounds from ready use revolvers. We’ll be able to easily switch between high explosive, ER Vulcano rounds, anti air, smoke, illumination, you name it. We can also down load rounds automatically now. No longer will we have to do it manually down three decks.
Range. Not much to say here. The 57mm we have now can shoot about 10km.
The rate of fire is greater than it’s primary competition. 20 rounds per minute for the MK45, 32 +/- 10% for the 127/64.
it’s water cooled. Techs hate it, operators love it. We don’t have to worry about hot gun misfire procedures anymore.
It also has a larger family of ammunition to choose from. Many of our allies are going with this gun system or its predecessor, so ammunition may be readily available in many parts of the world.
Hi Ted. Agree that this is a great purchase for the CSC Frigate program. And also lighter than the MK 45 Mode 4 (around 30 tons). I have however seen this two gun system before. Don’t forget the Halifax class Bofors 57mm and the Iroquois class 76mm systems and/or the 3″ 50 and 3″70 gun systems. Hopefully this contract will have some life at the end of the tunnel. Cheers!
This contract was a bit of a surprise as most experts have always said that the MK 45 Mode 4 Gun was always the ‘Front-Runner” for the CSC Frigate. The British and Australian Type 26 Frigates have always said that they will be installing the Mk 45 on their Frigate designs. I’m not sure if all the CSC Frigates will have this Leonardo gun system, or just the first 3 frigates as an AAW ship. The contract just doesn’t indicate that so far.
Dave according to my sources with the project all will have this gun and all will have these capabilities. Originally the intent was to have three AAW ships to replace three 280’s (the fourth wasn’t considered due to Huron essentially being paid off for many years and billets going away). Plans changed and now the CSC will all be equal. This gun system’s primary role is for anti surface and naval bombardment with AAW as a secondary role, missiles are way better than the gun.
The so called “experts” are being proven wrong in many areas in regards to this ship. Eventually when we pay off the CPFs we’ll have a one gun system unless you call the MK38 or 30mm in the same category. It makes no sense to buy 20 units and have the majority of them sitting in a warehouse for the next 15 to 20 years when when we can get the latest versions fresh from the factory. Just like we won’t have 15 propulsion systems sitting in a warehouse either.
Hi Ted. I now feel more comfortable with your reply than I did before. The OTO Malara 126/64 LW gun system is certainly much better system than the MK 45 Mode 4 and having the dual AAW/ASuW capability and the ability to fire ER and guided ballistic rounds is a great option. Overall I think a good fit for our CSC Frigates. The only thing I’m concerned about is the CSC Frigate weight issues that are now looming, especially when it comes to the speed of the CSC Frigate. I know that when we work with US Carrier groups especially during “fly-ops” it has always been hard for our Halifax class at least to keep up when we do “Plane Guard” duties as the carrier is into the wind a lot at over 30kts most of the time. If the CSC Frigate could keep up with the carrier, that would be great. Cheers!
Sorry this comment is now two years old, but in case it’s still relevant, the Leonardo system is more likely to lighten the total displacement of the ship as both the gun system and autoloader/ammunition handling systems are significantly lighter than the comparable systems from BAE; at least for the time being. (Although, as Canada’s ships will be physically the largest and longest Type 26’s, recent history has shown having more space on a ship is both cheaper to build and easier to upgrade with new adaptable modules/technologies later in its life; something which is apart of the $70+ billion life-time cost estimates that people often forget; with many thinking the $70+ billion is just the cost of construction and purchasing the 15 ships; when in reality each vessel will be constructed closer to the $1.5 billion mark) This also plays a bit more into expanding options with more international sales and improving the co-operation, connections and technologies shared with other core European nations; and not just buying a strictly British or American-type design.
As for the speed; its “official” design speed of “over 26 knots”, “27 knots”, and “27+ knots” is somewhat of a misdirect; the actual top speeds of the Type 26 variants are classified, as it is with many other nations’ fighting vessels, and this varies from navy to navy, although typically represents around 75–90% of the actual figure. For example, the Australian’s Type 26’s , or “Hunter-class”, displaces/weighs the most at 10 000 tonnes, in large part due to the use their own heavier Australian-made radar system and larger mast arrangement, significantly outweighs the 8,080 tonne Canadian and 6,900 tonne British variants by a notable margin, yet claim the highest speed of “27+ knots”, all while using the exact same propulsion motors, generators, gas turbine and power control systems of the British and Canadian Type 26’s. (Of course, in the end, time will tell all; the Arleigh Burke destroyers were originally launched as “25+ knot” vessels; although many analysts at the time had noted that this was likely a significant understatement, since U.S. aircraft carriers which the destroyer was to escort needed to be operated at between 27 and 30 knots into the wind for the safe recovery and deployment of aircraft.) Also, in regards to the Halifax class, the post-FELEX Halifax-class frigates are some of the fastest of any NATO country; officially reaching “over 30 knots” although likely capable of attaining speeds in the mid-30’s for short but repeatable sprints; (Although speed and range is becoming less important in naval doctrine for frigates as additional and more capable support vessels are increasingly deployed and the naval strategy/doctrine shifts to one of frigates acting as command/control ships to fleets of smaller unmanned vessels, aircraft, and submersibles; all acting in support of the mission(s) of the frigate/destroyer)
Anyways, I hope this still reaches and informs someone.
Best regards!