L3 Technologies announced this week that it will support the BAE Systems Power and Propulsion Team by providing the Integrated Platform Management System for the Royal Australian Navy SEA5000 bid.

L3 was selected to provide the IPMS, as well as Controls and Instrumentation, for the nine Type 26 Global Combat Ships proposed for the SEA5000 program. If BAE is successful, the total value of this contract, which is expected to be awarded by the federal government in April or May, is $27.4 billion.

According to a press release:

“The L3 IPMS provides integrated monitoring and control of warship propulsion, electrical, auxiliary and damage control machinery and systems along with advanced functionality, such as onboard training and equipment health monitoring. The IPMS will be implemented in Australia through L3 supported by Australian industry using technology from L3 MAPPS units based in Canada and the UK.

With a successful SEA5000 bid, L3 will be part of a team prepared to offer power and propulsion solutions for naval shipbuilding programs around the world.”

“This is an excellent example of Australian industry collaboration and innovation to deliver a world-leading solution to the Royal Australian Navy,” said Alan Titheridge, Managing Director of L3 Technologies Australia. “This teaming will achieve unrivalled Australian Industrial Capability (AIC) in this niche domain.”

“The proposed system shares its core technology with more than 200 naval ships in 22 different navies, and we are pleased to support BAE’s proposal for SEA5000 with such leading-edge technology,” added Rangesh Kasturi, President of L3 MAPPS.

12 COMMENTS

  1. Some years ago I submitted an idea to the MOD for a ‘Multi-Task’ frigate, which incorporated enough space for carrying various payloads, from light tanks to a sizable Marine force. Though the Type 26 will fall short in offering such a full capacity. I’m glad to see a deicated load zone for ‘Multi’ operations has been baked into the design.

  2. Let’s hope the Aussies, Canadians and US navy go for the design. That would potentially be a common NATO and close allied frigate hull with 8 RN, 13 Canadian, 20+ USN FFGX programme and 10 Australian frigates. Might drop unit price down for the RN and enable more than 8 of these impressive ships to enter service.
    You can live in hope. Got to stay positive somehow.

    • I think we will end up with more than 8 T26s but as eventual replacements for the T45s. Our hope for greater hull numbers in the short to medium term is the T31. Lets hope they make it a credible frigate at a decent price.

      • America will never buy anything from abroad, even if it is superior to what they have they’d rather see troops die with sub par equipment than buy foreign equipment. Even when they’ve grudgingly accepted a price of kit is better they’ll only use it if they can build it under licence and slap a different name on it.

        • The Spanish design originates from Gibbs and Cox and BIW. Navantia has teamed with BIW for the FFG(X) programme.

          Having 12 x Spanish ships with 48 x MK41 strike length plus Aegis CMS plus CEAFAR2 is potentially a great outcome for the RAN.

    • Canada is looking at 15 not 13 surface combatants the ship has not bin chosen but FREMM was disqualified for trying to circumvent the rule of the procurement. type 26 is believed to be the best choice. but it is not the only contender.

  3. I believe the political climate in Australia has changed of late towards greater emphasis on ABM threats rather than ASW. This trend and the standardisation argument would favour the Spanish offering which has more Mk41 tubes I think. That said BAE have a proven track record of design and transplant of the Ceafar / Ceamount mast to new hull and the Type 26 is a great ship. I wish them well, they are excellent engineers and probably the lowest integration risk option.

    • Sadly for the UK I dont think the Type 26 has a real shot. While they could easily fit the Ceafar/Ceamount to it (As everyone else realistically could) where it loses is in the missile department. Unless the design of the ship has been done in such a way that it would allow for the Sea Ceptor launches to be swapped out for Mk41’s then it is an offering giving us a missile capability that we are very unlikely to make use of seeing as we are already using the ESSM and are involved with the design and construction of the ESSM Block II.

      Easy enough to change radar’s and the like but when you start putting in larger missile cells then you start messing around with the ships internal layout where you not only have to fit the VLS cells but then have to find a new home for all the systems and compartments under neath that would have to be shifted.

  4. Unless the type 26 can come under the Spanish option then they have no hope. The Australian government only buy military hardware on cost not capability.

    • Not quite. If it was only on cost Australia would have gone with the cheaper AMV-35, JLTV, Type 216 or Soryu etc instead they have gone with the more expensive but more capable Boxer, Hawkei and Shortfin.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here