SHARE
Ottawa-based engineering firm WR Davis is the first Canadian company to secure a manufacturing contract to provide key equipment to the UK’s Type 26 Frigate programme.
BAE Systems, the designer and manufacturer of this next generation anti-submarine warfare ship, has awarded the C$12m contract to WR Davis Engineering Ltd for the Uptake and Downtake elements of the ship’s funnel and exhaust system for the first three Type 26 ships.
These components are key elements of the engine and propulsion system in the new UK Royal Navy ships.
Tom Davis, Vice President of WR Davis Engineering Ltd, said:
“We are delighted to participate in the prestigious UK Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Ship program for the supply of the complete Downtake, Uptake, and Infra-Red Suppression systems for the propulsion and ship service engines.

This builds on our previous experience of supplying similar systems for the UK Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and reinforces our position as a world leader in the design and supply of engine Downtakes and Uptakes, for naval warships.”

WR Davis is one of seven supply chain partners to have been awarded equipment manufacturing contracts with BAE Systems. The Canadian firm has already started performing system integration and detailed design work on the Type 26 Frigate programme.
The manufacturing contracts follow on from a number of design contracts already placed for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, including Montreal-based L-3 MAPPS for major elements of the platform management system in support of its L-3 Marine Systems UK business and Rolls-Royce, based in Peterborough, Ontario, for the mission bay handling system.
BAE Systems’ Ric Elkington, based in Ottawa, said:

“Canadian companies are playing a crucial role in the development of Type 26. This design is a next generation multi-mission frigate and is being considered for the Canadian Surface Combatant, to be built by Irving Shipbuilding Inc in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  

 
The work already underway on Type 26 could eventually lead to over C$70m of work for Canadian industry, based on the construction of eight Type 26 ships for the UK Royal Navy.”
The UK Ministry of Defence awarded BAE Systems a C$886m contract in March 2016 to continue to progress the Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme following the UK Government’s commitment in the Strategic Defence and Security Review to buy eight of the advanced anti-submarine warfare ships.
BAE say that the Type 26 will be a world-class anti-submarine warfare ship and will in time replace the UK Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates. Globally deployable, it will be capable of undertaking a wide range of roles from high intensity warfare to humanitarian assistance, either operating independently or as part of a task group.

15 COMMENTS

  1. Come on Canada order the type 26 frigate, lets get a NATO standard frigate. If Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and then ideally USA all become type 26 users we simply get economies of scale. We might then be able to afford more than just 8 ships for the RN.

    • That would be so great. Not to mention ongoing supply chain synergies for spares plus making crew exchanges more immediately productive. I think you need to find a portal to an alternative universe if you want to see the USA adopt T26 though (most of them being ones where they lost the war of independence).

      The only thing that bugs me about the T26, and I know it’s a rational decision based on budget priorities and possibly there would also be topside weight considerations (although I hope not the later), but aesthetically that little Artisan 997 radar siting atop that big mast just doesn’t look right to my eyes, like a cartoon character that’s somehow had their head shrunk. A Sampson globe would look so much more in proportion up there and finish off the whole thing nicely not to mention the added capability.

      It’s probably classified but I would really like to know if BAE have done weight analysis for carrying something like Sampson in anticipation of a bit for an AAW/T45-replacement variant.

      • There was work done on a single and double panel Sampson originally. T26 has enough size to fit PAAMs and Sampson. But realistically without a significant increase in defence spending it’s not going to happen. Even if the budget actually hit 2% proper the next 10-15 years would be spent regenerating capability and filling in already existing gaps.

        But even then Sampson works best with a volume search radar. You’d need 2 masts, one for the SMART-L and the other for Sampson.

        • Timmymagic – That’s good to know re full (double Sampson) possibility. I agree about the budget hence my original reference to it. Apart from my aesthetic comment about the cartoon character with a shrunken head which wasn’t entirely meant to be taken seriously, it was the practical possibilities for extra T26 becoming T45/AAW replacements that was really at the heart of my comment.

          Re SMART-L that is my second concern about extra (past the first 8) T26 being a viable T45 replacement. I’ve seen claims that Sampson could perform the SMART-L role as well if it wanted to but, although it’s probably true that it could perform that role, I’m not sure how much it would compromise Sampson’s main role. If nothing else a lot more compute power would need to be added to the Sampson back end to compensate for power used for volume search processing but even if that were done there are still presumably only so many beams that can be formed off the Sampson arrays plus having some redundancy on an AAW escort via totally separate systems seems like a good idea.

          I wonder whether the superstructure above the hangar where the radio masts are could be built up at all as a location for Smart-L. Issues would obviously be top-weight again but also would the existing masts still fit and/or interfere EM-wise with SMART-L or vica versa, and would the aft Sea Ceptors still be able to clear any new structure after soft launch (which throws them 30m up I think or is it 20m?) for a safe launch? All this is another thing that I wonder whether BAE might have modelled in the design phase.

  2. Here is the latest image of the Australian Type 26 variant with anti-ship missile canisters and what looks like CEC antenna panels up the mast and Hawklink antenna dome on top of the antenna castle. BAE tender was submitted 2 days ago.

    https://www.facebook.com/BAESystemsAustralia/photos/a.370806636293873.81192.224722210902317/1582996408408217/?type=1&theater

    Type 26 will be in competition with the Navantia frigate whose tender was just submitted – see following press release:

    http://adbr.com.au/navantia-responds-to-future-frigate-rft-with-f-5000/

    • So that Canada can play its part in cooperating with allies to maintain global security whereas the UK, a much bigger economy, would sit back and say “someone else’s problem” and contribute nothing?

      Yet another indication of your selfish viewpoint and childish attitude to taking responsibility TH.

  3. It does look like it was designed for a much bigger radar on top of the mast. If other countries order these (unlikely) it will be interesting to see how they kit them out offensive/defensive wise.

  4. It’s a bit dual purpose by the way, not just Infra-red suppression, but also fuel economy and performance. And I daresay it’s green 🙂

  5. TH go away! Not appreciated and typical left leaning stupidity. The world is a dangerous place and the UK needs to be able to deploy vessels like the type 26 to defend our global interests. Additionally we have to be able to support our allies around the world and thus vessels like type 26 are not only expensive but desperately needed. If you cannot see that you are simply daft!
    I am sure you will be the first to ask where are our armed forces? ( those that people like you have so joyously cut) when there is a real threat to our allies, our sovereignty, freedom and UK interests around the world.

    • Well said Mr Bell, TH’s views and attitude are deplorable. Let’s be too weak, irresponsible and selfish to contribute anything of substance to NATO or our other alliances. It’s the attitude of a child or, in adulthood a freeloader who has no concept of everyone needing to play their part. And no, the USA shouldn’t be left to do it all. I am definitely not a Trump fan but on one area I agree with him; he has a right to be angry at how many US allies take the “let the USA pay for it all” attitude to defence.

      The UK is by no means perfect, we all know the 2% of GDP is smoke and mirrors and the £178 billion extremely suspect however many times Fallon repeats it, but even though we are at least one of the least-bad offenders, we still don’t fully pull our weight and should be scaling up our commitments and investments in order to play our part rather than slipping back further towards a pathetic “someone else will do all this for us” attitude because one day just maybe that someone else won’t.

      • The UK and France play a disproportionate part along with the USA in any actions with NATO / UN, and that doesn’t come out of the defence budget, it’s straight from the Treasury. So that adds to the nominal 2%. Yes, the UK is right as far as money is concerned to contribute to NATO and not leave it all to good ole Uncle Sam. I suspect if it wasn’t for the UK the US would have abandoned NATO long ago.

        Estonia, Greece, Poland and Romania are also meeting the 2% target this year, with Belgium, one of the founders, the second worst at 0.91%, and Luxembourg absolute worst at 0.44%:

        http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf

LEAVE A REPLY