Leviton has announced that is has secured a supply contract with BAE Systems to provide cabling for the Batch 1 Type 26 frigates.

The firm say that the Brand-Rex High Performance Cables will support a variety of communication, power, and mission-critical systems onboard the vessels.

Leviton say it has already delivered approximately 490 kilometers of cable for the first order from BAE Systems for the Type 26 frigates.

“Leviton is proud to partner with BAE Systems on this prestigious project,” said Marc Pawson, Sales Manager for Leviton.

“We are excited to provide British-made cables and bring our expertise with complex cabling requirements that must meet high-specification demands.”

Leviton is an approved supplier of copper and fiber optic cables for military and maritime applications, offering custom cables and hybrid constructions with high performance insulating and outer materials optimized for military systems and infrastructure.

The Brand-Rex High Performance Cables are manufactured to world-class British Naval standards at Leviton’s factory in Leigh, England.

Leviton say that it also manufactures specialty cabling for other extreme environments, including rail, automotive, industrial, and aerospace applications.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
farouk
farouk
1 year ago

Good looking ship. just wondering if the Aussie and Candian versions will have the same electronics and weapons fit

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

farouk – Not from the information and pictures released so far,as it stands the T26 will certainly consist of Three Variants, with the Canadian order possibly having Two on its own ( 12 Halifax class and 3 Iroquois replacement’s)

Paul
Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Not going on the models displayed at DSEI last week.

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul

Many thanks Paul for your swift reply. On that note (and where I was going with my orginal post) who will have the most effective varient?

Paul
Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

You need a better brain on the case to answer that question than I can provide, Farouk.

Thought I’d read somewhere before that the UK fit-out is TBC, but that in itself is TBC. Thanks.

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Hardly definitive by any stretch, but apparently the Canadian version is slated to have the ASW fit-out, wide area air defence, and land attack. The report I saw didn’t state two sub-types for the different roles as suggested above, but it would certainly make some sense. If it is one type, then the Canadian one would seem to be fitted for the broadest set of missions, although how they’d fit in sufficient missiles/vertical launched torpedoes for all 3 missions I’m not really sure. The Australians state an anti-ship capability, most likely from the cannisters that Julian mentioned. Frankly, I’d go… Read more »

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Pretty sure the RAN version has an all-Mk41 forward silo vs the RN Mk41 plus dedicated cold-launch CAMM silos. I think the RAN T26 has 32 Mk41 and no Sea Ceptor vs RN 24 Mk41 plus 24 Sea Ceptor. The RAN spec also has 2 x 4 canister launchers I believe and since RAN is not adopting Sea Ceptor I would assume those would go in place of the midships 24 x Sea Ceptor silo on the RN T26. Twin phalanx + twin 30mm would seem to be common to both RN & RAN variants. I haven’t really researched spec… Read more »

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Julian,
Many thanks.

Callum
Callum
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Slight correction: the T26 has 24 Mk41 + 48 Sea Ceptor, not 24.

I’m in favour of adding the 40mm Bofors to T26, and backfit to T45, but I’d actually replace the Phalanx mount with it. Assuming the MK4 Bofors mount could be integrated into their combat systems (unlike Phalanx, it would require the ship’s sensors), the bigger, guided shells are more likely to be effective as a CIWS against modern and future weapons. Plus, it lets you keep the 30mm mounts and integrate the 5-shot Martlet missile launcher onto it.

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  Callum

I was initially only talking about forward silo, 24 Mk41 + 24 Sea Ceptor replaced by I think 32 Mk41 in RAN variant and then the other 24 RN Sea Ceptor in the midships silo replaced I assume by the 8 canisters for the RAN T26. Sorry if that wasn’t clear (which on reading it back it certainly wasn’t but it was what I meant – honest!). On 40mm I suppose it’s also a case of where does it end. Given the standard RFA defensive fit seems to be trending towards 2 x 30mm + sometimes-fitted 2 x Phalanx I… Read more »

T.S
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

I think 24 mk41 strike and 48 camm is probably the perfect fit for the T26. It does make you wonder in relation to the design being adapted for T45 replacement, if there is space for 2 sets of 24 seaceptor with their low packing density, how many tactical mk41/Sylver could we fit if needed? Probably at least 2x 18 if not the full 24. In theory, the T4X could have something like 24 VLS A70 for 12 larger bmd Aster and 12 future heavyweight asm/land attack missile, and 24 VLS A50 for seaviper all at the bow. If A50… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

The DS30M is a point and squirt weapon, it is not radar guided. It has a electro-optical day/night camera that the operator uses to aim the weapon. In this form it is not suited as a CIWS.
The 40mm is married to an electro-optic sensor but is also radar controlled thus giving it a CIWS capability.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Julian, I missed the gun selection for Type 31. Have they gone with 57mm main gun and twin 40mm? Do you have the source for that?

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Hi Paul. Yes, there’s an article on the Savetheroyalnavy site here…

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-of-the-royal-navys-type-31-frigate-emerge/

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Hi Julian. Thanks !

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

This T31 looks handy after all. Need more than 5!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

Yes, more would be good. The proposed guns and Sea Ceptor provide credible fire power against swarm attacks.
I did have my doubts about LMM for swarms, whether Wildcat launched or attached to the 30mms. Feel much happier with the Bofors arrangement.
I’m also hoping the first 5 will receive the interrim Harpoon replacement, e.g. NSM ( separate budget?). Together with Wildcat and Sea Venom this would give these T31 some offensive anti ship capability against larger ships, corvettes and frigates sporting a 76mm and Exocet etc.

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

And on electronics the Aussies are going with CEAFAR not the Artisan to be used on the RN vessels.

Does anyone know what primary radar the Canadians are going to use? Maybe that’s going to vary depending on specialist AAW version or not.

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Julain wrote: Does anyone know what primary radar the Canadians are going to use? Found this on Janes from this May:(Please excuse the long C&P) Full steam ahead [CS19D1] A design based on the UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Type 26 Global Combat Ship has been selected as the basis for the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) next generation of surface combatants. The award of an initial C$185 million contract to Irving Shipbuilding for the design phase of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme was confirmed in February this year. Lockheed Martin Canada – partnered with BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA,… Read more »

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Thanks Farouk

Nick C
Nick C
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian

Interesting correspondence on this one. Playing fantasy Fleet’s for a moment it would be good to have a face off between all three variants to measure their effectiveness in various scenarios. Of course that won’t happen for at least a decade, and most probably longer!
Here’s another thought, if the Canucks are going for an Iroquois replacement presumably it’s primary focus is AAW. Will there be cross fertilisation from Canada to the UK to influence the design of the T45 replacement, presumably T46?

Rise
Rise
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

The walls have ears.
Armchair intel oppos on this page getting giddy about things that have nothing to do with them.

Jack Wyatt
Jack Wyatt
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian

RAN ships will also have Aegis combat system, SAAB tactical interface and CEC.

Willful Murder
Willful Murder
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

The main difference in appearance will be in the foremast atop the bridge. Otherwise, they have the same basic shape, superstructure and hull form. All three will be beautiful ships.

Grubbie
Grubbie
1 year ago

Slightly boring story, massive mark up for Bae.

Cam
Cam
1 year ago

American company.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago

I really don’t get the rationale behind the T26 frigate? It is the Navy’s primary ASW asset apart from the subs. Yet they seem to want to fit it out as a modern day cruiser. The main purpose of the frigate is to protect either the sea lanes or a task group. To protect the sea lanes the ships will be operating generally over deep water sprinting and drifting to catch subs. To protect a task group it will be operating on the fringes miles from the task group to minimise background noise. The 1SL has intimated that when ever… Read more »

Matt
Matt
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Hi DaveyB
I’m pretty sure the T26 is also designed to protect out continuously at sea deterrent… Not sure how many of the 8 that would be though. But even then… 2 escorting the QE class, perhaps 2 in maintenance, 2 protecting the tridents/dreadnoughts, that really only leaves 2 spare.
Slightly concerning no?
[email protected]

Matt
Matt
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

Actually… Add 1 to one of the Standing NATO Maritime Groups and 1 at an exercise, that leaves 0 spare lol
[email protected]

the_marquis
the_marquis
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

That is a fair question, and perhaps also you could say that the T26 and T31 are doing the wrong roles in that case. Perhaps the T26 should be the general purpose cruiser, and the T31 the lightweight stripped down ASW frigate as the T23 was initially envisoned. Or maybe the need for Artisan and anti ship missiles comes from the perceived future threats to the ASW fleet, that when operating in the North Atlantic they would be exposed to long range naval bombers and guided missile cruisers and destroyers. In the 1970s, the concept of the through deck cruisers/harrier… Read more »

Cam
Cam
1 year ago

Our frigates will have more weapons than our destroyers!

Ian
Ian
1 year ago

OK, what’s happened to the British cable supplier: AEI Cables?
Wasn’t it they who supplied BAE on the QE build?

Ian
Ian
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

Just read that three companies are supplying cable, AEI still being one of them.

Propellerman
1 year ago

missing the point of the article here folks – this is high value UK designed and built equipment going into a ship – all the fuss about RFA hulls going overseas is missing the point

it’s the high value stuff that goes inside that provides jobs, skills and scope for export orders rather then getting stressed about someone else welding cheap mild steel together we should fly the flag for companies like Leviton

quiet, under the radar and doing a damn good job – well done