CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Ultra, along with BAE and Lockheed Martin have teamed up to offer the Type 26 Frigate to Canada.

Speculation is mounting that Canada is seriously considering the Type 26 Frigate for its ‘Canadian Surface Combatant’ project.

Anne Healey, BAE General Manager (Group Business Development Canada) said, referring to a BAE bid to sell the Type 26 in Canada:

“The Type 26 Global Combat Ship is the world’s newest and most advanced surface combatant design. We are planning to cut steel in 2017, which is ideal timing for the CSC programme; being 3 years ahead of the Canadian program.”


Canada’s Combat Ship Team say their approach to the CSC project exclusively parallels the Canadian Government’s Defence Policy, which is the foundation for the offering: Strong, Secure and Engaged. The following statement was released earlier today:

“STRONG. Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s approach to the strategic objective STRONG is to provide the right ship for the Royal Canadian Navy that surpasses baseline requirements with minimal change. This solution represents the lowest development risk and is underpinned by Canadian doctrine; interoperability with five-eyes nations and other NATO allies; ability to achieve safety certification and security accreditation; ease of operation, maintenance and sustainment; and ease of upgradeability to address future capabilities.

“The Type 26 Global Combat Ship is a flexible, next generation warship design which offers a low risk and affordable solution for the Canadian Surface Combatant program,” stated Anne Healey, Country Director, Canada, BAE Systems. “With the UK Type 26 program running ahead of CSC, our Canadian ship will benefit from lessons learnt on the UK program. This schedule also allows Type 26 the opportunity to be the most advanced Canadian Surface Combatant.Canadian companies such as W.R. Davis Engineering in Ottawa, Rolls-Royce in Peterborough and L3 MAPPS in Montréal have already begun work on delivering high-technology systems for the UK’s Type 26, demonstrating the skills and capability available from the Canadian supply chain.”

SECURE. Under the pillar of SECURE, Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s offering focuses on ensuring successful program execution by bringing together a pan-Canadian team who have proven, demonstrated and current pedigree in performing complex defence contracts in Canada; who have well-established infrastructure, employees, security clearances and facilities in place today; who have demonstrated their commitment and reliability to successfully execute the project by their substantial investments in CSC and in meeting all procurement deadlines; and therefore who are poised to perform the CSC program, Ready on Day One.

“Lockheed Martin Canada has been Canada’s trusted Combat System Integrator for more than three decades, and our team can be counted on to deliver affordable solutions, sustained job creation, and technology development in Canada for export potential,” said Rosemary Chapdelaine, Vice President and General Manager, Lockheed Martin Canada. “We’ll employ our proven collaborative partnership model to successfully manage the highly complex systems integration process – including integrating our CMS 330 Combat Management System with the Type 26 Global Combat Ship – and leverage the innovation and talent here at home which will ultimately result in unprecedented economic outcome for Canada.”

ENGAGED. Embodied throughout Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s offering is our multifaceted approach to achieving the strategic pillar ENGAGED. The underlying principles implemented focus on partnership with all stakeholders and, equally important, maintaining sovereignty of the CSC solution in Canada, which can only be achieved by having the solution and capability developed “at home” by Canadians.”

Canada’s Combat Ship Team add in an additional statement on their website:

“Offering the most advanced and modern warship design with Canadian-developed combat and platform systems, BAE Systems, CAE, Lockheed Martin Canada, L3 Technologies, MDA, and Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems Inc. (Ultra) are partnering (on a non-exclusive basis) as Canada’s Combat Ship Team for the Royal Canadian Navy’s future fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC).

For Canada’s distinctive mission requirements, Canada’s Combat Ship Team proposes BAE Systems’ Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Shipdesign, enhanced with the team’s collective Canadian naval expertise in combat system design, integration, training, logistics and program management. Our team is offering Canada’s trusted Combat Management System – Lockheed Martin Canada’s modern CMS 330, currently in service on board Canada’s modernised HALIFAX-class frigates.

Our team has been a proven and trusted partner to the Royal Canadian Navy for more than three decades on some of the most successful naval projects in Canada’s history, as well as with other premier navies and shipyards around the world.”

Canadian firms have already won contracts to support UK Type 26 programme with Ottawa-based engineering firm WR Davis being the first to secure a manufacturing contract to provide key equipment. BAE Systems has awarded the contract for the Uptake and Downtake elements of the ship’s funnel and exhaust system for the first three Type 26 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 programme 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.”


  1. The RCN (and the Royal Australian Navy incidentally) would have to be insane to pay that price tag, fantastic as the Type 26s will be they simply cost far too much.

      • Just shy of £1bn per unit for the British specification of the Type 26, that’s a staggering amount more than the rival competition

        • Balony.

          The unit cost has not been revealed by anyone. The first contract for 3 ships includes a lot more things than just the ships themselves like service & support contracts, shore facilities & design.

    • I know FREMM is cheaper but is that not mainly down to a lower end radar suite and smaller size? If T26vticks alll of fhe requirements it should have a good chance. I only see Canada ordering 6 to 8 though.

      • FREMM is a much lower spec all round. Lower survivability, noisier, fewer communications & sensors. A better comparison for FEMM will be the upcoming Type 31.

        • Ron5, I doubt the RAN would have included the Italian FREMM in its final three contenders if it was comparable to a Type 31. RCN no doubt the same. Since the FREMM has now been offered to the RCN at a fixed price of 30 billion it is in with a real chance especially with the strong support the French have in Canada.

          • There is a considerable price difference, I’m pretty sure they use the same ASW equipment supplied by Thales as the T26, and if Canada are specifying the Aegis combat management system I’m struggling to see how the T26 can justify the increased price.

    • Levi: You obviously don’t know the costs of ships in todays prices. As of now each CSC Type 26 will cost approximately 2.5/3B CDN in 2018 dollars to build by Irving. However the longer a decision is delayed by the Canadian Government, the more expensive each ship will become next year, no matter which design is chosen. That’s why it’s so important a decision is made before the end of this year. If the LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate is selected, Canada will have a great advantage with prices dropping significantly depending on the number of hulls that are built by the RN/AUS/CAN. A cluster of 32 “sister ships” will be realized for all 3 countries. There is great value in numbers!!!

    • Hi Levi: Could not agree with Ron5 more! Now that Australia will acquire their “Hunter Class” ASW Frigate, costs for the LM/BAE Type 26 will surely come down commensurate with the numbers of ships to be built by LM/BAE. As Canada has already set aside $62B to build 15, repeat 15, Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) no matter which bidder the Canadian government will choose this Fall, costs for all 32 “sister” ships will inevitably go down. The $2.5-3B cost for each CSC will also fall. The Dutch and Spanish designs are great AAW capable ships, but lack the ASW capability of the Type 26 and both are also much noisier that the Type 26 for ASW Ops as well. Yes, $62B is a lot of money for our new RCN fleet, but that amount could quite possibly go down for all 15 ships as we go forward, as much as $10B which could be used to create a Canadian Strategic Amphibious Ship capability (possibly a Juan Carlos type of ship).

  2. Agree…but and this is a hope.
    if RCN and RANS purchase type 26 derivatives maybe, just maybe that will drive down unit costs.
    The USN are looking at a 20+ ship frigate order for Atlantic patrol and ASW/ convoy escort duties FFGX programme. If they purchase type 26 or 31 frigates for this design perhaps we should get our ships built in US and abandon BAE systems and their ridiculous price monopoly. £1.23 billion for a large ASW surface combatant. Seriously??

    • Mr Bell – I am astounded you so happily export British jobs to the USA. And forgive me but weren’t you complaining some time ago about the lack of shipbuilding jobs here?

      No. We should be setting out our stall as a trading nation and saying yes have this ship but we build the first 10% of any order as a First in Class and then you can licence build the rest. And by so doing WE get to increase the benefit of our considerable investment to date and economies of scale with bigger numbers. 10% of US (2), Canadian (2) and Australian (1) orders adds some 60% to construction demand here

    • The Type 26 has been excluded from the FFG(X) program under “parent design”. Bath Iron Works has recently announced an agreement with Navantia to offer the F100 to the US Navy.

      Not being a proven and in service design is a huge hurdle to overcome due to risk. This is one of the reason why Lurrsen was announced as winner of the RAN’s OPV project a last week.

      • Hi Jack:
        Could not agree more. The USN will never, repeat never, give a foreign country the ability to design or build a USN Frigate (Type 26), even if it were the right thing for them to do. All of their ships will be designed and built in the U.S.A no matter what. The USN has no desire to build OTS for their navy and will never except another design but their own.

    • Asbthebdeaign costs for T26 are covered buy our builds BAE would be ablento sell them at a lower cost. But seriously the US would never but foreign. Thats what they male small countries do

    • Hi MR BELL: Sorry, but the US will never, repeat never, build out of country-OTS ships in the US. The US is “stubborn” in that way, so the Type 26 Frigate, although a great ASW platform would definitely be a no-go in for the USN. They may however, buy some of the technology that the Type 26 has for to incorporate into their new FFXX ASW Frigate.

  3. In this day and age, we (UK) need to build warships on time and to budget. If we can’t, then it would be risky for other markets not to build them in their own countries. This does not mean these ships would not overrun budget and build time, but it would not reflect directly on the UK’s efficiencies. The idea of designing warships and selling the design as packages, maybe one lucrative market for future UK designers?
    If the design and build programme for both 26 & 31 succeeds in broad terms, the UK could offer workable solutions and sell those on, thus saving countries like Canada and Australia the huge development costs? We could even sell on build packages for the QE Class carriers, either full size or smaller concepts. One big advantage for the UK warship industry, is the current build programmes and all the R&D expertise that will ultimately be attained from them. This could be perceived as an attractive option for many markets. who wish to avoid homegrown designs with all that it entails.

    • You are thinking alomg the right lines. Let’s be clear. Type 26 is a great ship. Its price to the RN is high because it took too long to develop, because the price is loaded with all the development costs and for all I know the River 2 assembly hall. Type 31 will be a great ship at an affordable price. These are ships other navies will salivate over, provided we arm them adequately. Artisan is a clever radar. Sea Ceptor is a clever missile, and getting export orders. MT 30 and the RR diesels are the go to warship propulsion. Am a bit fed up with the UK playing second export fiddle to Spain and France in the warship export market.

      • That’s where my point enters the conversation, we have just completed two huge carriers that are as modern as one can get, with what I assume, is plenty of future proofing. The UK must project its excellence if it want’s to play on the big page, and should be able to worry both Spain and France in its capabilities. That’s why I believe we have a golden opportunity to lead and not follow in warship design.

    • Rover10. Could not agree more with your comments. There is strength in numbers and if Canada were to select the LM/BAE Type 26 this Fall, that would realize at least 32 “sister” ships for the UK/AUS/CAN to share overall costs in R & D which could bring prices down significantly. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!

  4. It seems to me that the UK taxpayer will see no benefit from this but BAE will.

    WE need licensing costs returning value to the UK first and foremost, followed by missiles, guns, and engines. They will clearly be built in Australia and Canada and I have no problem with that and as long as we are all working together on this it would be nice to get a common set of platforms across all 3 partners.

    I hope I am wrong – but the evidence to date would suggest I won’t be.

    • Don’t be so frikkin stupid. Bae paid 2.5 billion in taxes last year. How does that not help the UK taxpayer???

      That’s ignoring the personal taxes paid by Bae workers out of their Bae paid wages.

      • Taxes are one thing – and I suspect those taxes will be paid on its UK based businesses only. Secondly the design of the T26 is owned by the British Govt and we need to see a return on it.

        BAE is a self serving corporation that seems to care little for the country it represents. But that is just my opinion.

        • pacman27 – with respect BAE is a public quoted company and therefore its Directors have NO obligation to the UK or its Government other than to honour its laws and tax codes. In fact they have a primary Fiduciary duty to their Shareholders which proscribed in British Law.
          We need to get away from slagging off huge businesses simply because they made the mistake of being rather good at what they do and therefore becoming successful or are we now all Corbynista Marxists? In the USA BAE are admired and appreciated and invest heavily there because of that entrepreneurial but fiercely competitive environment. Here you all run them down. This company employs thousands of workers directly and possibly millions indirectly. So yeah lets run them down and better still make sure they go bust if we can … Brilliant tactic that.

  5. I still worry that the advance of hypersonic missiles and railguns means even proposed advanced warships like the type26 have no defence propsed for them. Very expensive targets it seems.

    • And yet every significant country in the world is building warships as fast as it can.

      Seems your worry might not be shared by many.

    • Rail guns are still a long way off from being fielded rather than just a development project. At least two reasons for this is the enormous power they consume to fire the hypersonic slugs. But, also the rail life (barrel life) is at present really short something like 50 to 100 shots before they need replacing. I agree they are the future, if the system can be made more efficient and have a more realistic rail life. Unless the ship has been originally designed to generate this kind of surplus electrical power, most ships today will not be able to field this weapon.

      Hypersonic missiles can be engaged and defeated which has been proven, although in the vertical plane. The Type 45’s S1850M and Sampson have both tracked hypersonic targets and engaging is just down to mathematics of placing the anti missile missile in the right place. If we are talking hypersonic anti ship missile such as Brahmos. These are wave-huggers that start jinking closer to the target, to try to foil the missile intercept. Therefore, at that speed and height a direct hit will not be necessary, a near miss may be enough.

      The most important phase of intercepting the missile is early detection. The S1850M and Sampson have proven to be remarkably adept at detecting fast and low threats. The Artisan that is fitted to a number of Type 23s has also shown how capable it is to detect these type of threats. The Sea Ceptor may only be a Mach 3.5 missile, but so long as the radar has detected the threat, it can be placed in the right place to intercept the incoming threat. One of the great benefits Sea Ceptor has over Seawolf is that it may take two to successfully engage this type of threat, and a T23 or T26/31 can carry a bucket load compared to Seawolf. If we take this a step further and use a Crowsnest equipped aircraft, detection and possibly engagement is pushed out even further.

  6. Type 26 is optimized for ASW but has effective anti-air and anti-missile capabilities out to 50km or so. The efficacy of hypersonic missiles and ship-borne rail guns has yet to be demonstrated, let alone proven. I wouldn’t worry too much about them just yet.

      • Ron5, GR

        I think most of us believe in this product but the facts are it was supposed to be for a fixed price of £500m and we were going to order 13 as they now cost 2.5x this cost we are getting 8 (same situation as T45) and whilst I understand this is not solely BAE’s fault. There is something seriously wrong with how they operate within and for The UK.

        The product is something totally different and I have no problem supporting it and selling it as I do believe it to be a good product (albeit with strange choice of propulsion – given we have sorted the T45 problems out).

        So good product – not so sure about the company…

        • I don’t think that Bae are the problem, at least not all of it.. The problem is that successive governments seem incapable of making a decision and then sticking too it. All of here can quote chapter and verse about any government.
          They say “we will build a we won’t; reform the army.. now do it again..actually why not get rid of the marines.. no,maybe not , let’s cut the army again recce cancel destroyers 14 please, well 12 ,eh 8, no 6 will do and how about that T26 thing”

          But says the PM..”what will we do if those service people complain?” “not a problem” says Sir H ” We’ll have a review about the review. That’ll catch them out”

          • Agree with this perspective. Indecision will cripple you every time. Its something of a UK cultural problem. BAE will always be happy to make changes if the customer pays and is prepared to accept longer lead times. That’s business.

        • Again a really stupid comment from Pacman. the 500 milllion you quote comes from your bottom as does your remarks on the Type 45 propulsion – the Type 26 system is totally different.

          By the volume of misinformation you sow here, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are Russian.

  7. Morning
    The game changer could be BAES tying up LM and the CMS330. The Canadians use it and understand it. More importantly LM build it in Canada.
    These ships will be very complex, versitle, powerful and therefore cost a bit more. You get what you pay for in the international markets. Home markets are always slewed by political wrangling and development costs, those costs have to be picked up somewhere.
    We could have a 21st century Leander here, so we paid a bit more than the others – I would suggest the benefits outweigh the upfront cost.

    • Lee H: Could not agree with you more!
      The BAE Type 26 ASW frigate is a cutting-edge warship that is simply the best fit for Canada’s future workhorse navy. It is a modern warship with all the capabilities Canada requires in a CSC. The Type 26 is infinitely adaptable, can easily be reconfigured and the RCN can tweak the design to cater to its own development requirements, which is where the Type 26 has the potential to excel. The MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) could be reconfigured from 24 to 32 OR 48 cells to accommodate a precision strike and BMD capability. Some have suggested that Canada cannot afford the Type 26 frigate at approximately $2.5/3 billion CAD per ship in 2018 dollars. The $62 billion CAD allocated for the build will ensure the RCN gets the ‘best bang for the buck’ enabling a more robust AAW MK 41 VLS with a BMD capability along with an AEGIS-style platform. The first three or four Type 26 frigates could very easily have this extra capability incorporated into their design. A reconfigurable mission bay can accept containerized loads to allow the rapid reloading of the vessel. Such loads might include aid/rescue packages, underwater vehicles, boats or naval drones. This ship exceeds Canada’s high level requirements, would be deployable worldwide for extended periods and would be more than capable of replacing both the RCN’s anti-air and anti-submarine capabilities with one single class of ship.
      The final three contenders are all suitable platforms given their main strengths. So which ship is best fit for Canada’s navy? The BAE Type 26 CSC is simply the right solution for Canada’s future naval fleet and at a final cost of approximately $61 billion CAD, they are still well worth the investment and of course would be built here in Canada. But regardless of the merits of the ships, the final result of the process will be weighed up between two decisions, one military and one political – what’s the best CSC ASW/AAW warship for Canada, and which bid would best result in an enduring national industry. Regardless of the selection outcome this year, the opportunity exists for the government to demonstrate vision and understanding of its military capability needs through the selection of the LM/BAE Type 26 frigate. I believe BAE has got this one right this time, and Canada need look no further. If Canada is to be serious about its naval influence and contribution to NATO in the coming decades, now is the time for the Trudeau government to show some real courage and foresight in the final decision. When we look, however, at all three final contenders, there is a real possibility that the ‘right’ war-fighting capability selection may be hijacked by a choice which presents greater political gain rather than advantage over a future combatant.

  8. Swan Hunters on Tyneside used build ships for the RN ahead of time and on price. It was shut down for polical reasons and gave Bae a monopoly when they bought out Vickers (a disgraceful decision as they can hold MOD to ransom. )

    • Bull. The monopoly was create when Bae bought Vospers, not Vickers.

      And the monopoly was caused by the Labour government (Grayson) saying no Queen Elizabeth contracts would be warded unil a monopoly was formed.

  9. Well, this kind of alliance with LM in the lead is what it will take to sell Type 26 to Canada. I confess I could not see BAE pulling it off alone with or without UK gov backing. The very fact that this alliance is forming validates the 26 design. Best of luck.

  10. We may know by the end of this month (July 2018) after the “curing” process has been completed who will win the right to build the Canadian Surface Combatant. It may not take as long as some people may think. I am hoping for an “end-of-Summer” 2018 decision. I am hopeful that the LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate will come out on top however leaving it up to Canada’s political Members of Parliament may be difficult for the Type 26 Frigate to contend with. It may be a Political decision based on what is best for MP’S rather than what is best for the Country.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here