The Global Combat Ship for Australia

A next-generation capability to secure Australian jobs for generations.
For the SEA5000 program BAE Systems will offer the Commonwealth the export version of the Type 26 - our Global Combat Ship (GCS). The GCS is the newest, most advanced and most capable Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) platform in the world. Purpose designed for ASW, the GCS combines superior acoustic stealth with peerless general purpose capabilities, exemplified by the multi-mission bay, which provides unparalleled mission flexibility.

[@patrickalford1278]

Winner!! Hope they deliver in quality and capability.

[@cirONE65]

For Admiral the winner is a FREMM, For political incorrect is type 26. Ps 2022 0 build, remember french submarine? The same situation

[@Andrew-is7rs]

They have changed the upper radar. Interesting

[@charlieyerrell9146]

What we need is co operation between UK Australia and New Zealand and Canada to produce the best military ship's available.If we do this it will cut the cost of building the best ship's.

[@14hook]

Canada has ordered 15 type 26 we need 20 and 4 or 5 destroyer leaders one for each squadron as well

[@armydefense8396]

I think Australia is going to buy 12 of these!

[@wattlebough]

Army Defense Nine.

[@valenrn8657]

Nine ships with CER's AESA radar set and Aegis.

[@valenrn8657]

Wayne Haile, SeaRAM is just an alternative to longer range ESSM. ESSM is shared with SM2/SM6 in Mk 41 VLS e.g. If a destroyer has 48 cell MK 41 vertical launch tubes, 1. 32 cells could be loaded with SM2/SM6 and 16 cells loaded with quad packed ESSM (64 missiles). 2. 40 cells could be loaded with SM2/SM6 and 8 cells loaded with quad packed ESSM (32 missiles). BAE has to beat the competition against Spanish evolved F100 variant. BAE should offer superior platform specs and lower price if they want to win competition. Four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the U.S. 6th Fleet would have SeaRAM installed this year.

[@212MPH]

What a turn around, Australia never bought British in recent history, now our ships and nuclear subs. All I can say is its good to have Australia back with us.

[@DutchFR1908]

looks a bit like the dutch combat ships but pretty awesome

[@johngodden4363]

An impressive ship, particularly fitted out with AEGIS combat system and Aussie SEAFAR radar, but I would like to see a greater number of VLS cells to deals with the likes of China’s full array of missiles. The multi mission bay is fine for peacetime scenarios but I would be far happier if say - three of the nine ships on order had the multi mission bay utilised with another 48 Mark 41 VLS cells. They should also be fitted out for SM3, SM6 & tomahawk land attack missiles. Yes - that makes them Destroyers but we need another three of them anyhow.

[@getstuffed2391]

Good points but your forgetting something these ships had anti submarine capability in mind more than any else when it comes to mission capabilities sm 6 belongs more with the Hobarts but we will have to wait until they get upgraded otherwise the hunter is a very good ship and a massive improvement over the Anzac class which had only 8 vls these ships tho are going to be more of an escort force and multi role ship if conflict with China happens

[@himbisaquatics]

type 26 will be fitted with atleast up to 72vls

[@getstuffed2391]

TATS MILITARY TODAY 48 sea Ceptor and 24 mk 41 I believe

[@lukeallison3713]

@@getstuffed2391 It should still be possible to change it to a 32 cell vls- and the CAAM medium range will soon be available while the vls should take asroc,tomahawk and possibly the British future anti ship missile which will either be high supersonic or hypersonic while being small enough for mk 41

[@getstuffed2391]

@@lukeallison3713 it already is 32 cells. Australia isn’t buying camm, by installing the aegis combat system to the hunters we are also staying with the standard missile family. ASROC is not an Australian requirement especially since we can launch a Romeo Seahawk to do the same job. Tomahawk will most likely be installed at some point but is still a Hobart requirement and finally Australia has already purchased navel strike missiles from Norway which will replace the current harpoons on both hobarts and anzacs and will be transferred onto hunters when ready. The British future anti ship missile is definitely not a requirement as of right now especially since it’s still in the design stage.

[@johnbaays9635]

Quality ship

[@glenndwyer5786]

Hope they are on the way now or soon,i get the feeling its getting hot in here

[@Cubcariboo]

One of the vessels shortlisted for Canada as well. Navy in a pitiful state at the moment. Cdn economy/population larger than Australia but we are envious of your fleet.

[@theslicefactor5326]

Indeed. A shame for an excellent nation like Canada to have a navy in such poor condition.

[@paulbaker9277]

Well maybe our two nations could work together more closely so Canada could work along side with Australia and so forth ,this could bring costings down to help develop both our navies and share to a commonality between us . I don't see a problem there but that would be up to Canada , as both are commonwealth countries I feel we should make an effort in helping each other and there maybe other opportunities as well , but that might be to complicated for politicians to think in those terms .

[@Will_CH1]

Cub Cariboo, Australia and Canada should cooperate on a joint fighter project such as the Arrow 2. Our operational needs are virtually identical and not matched by existing designs. As for the navy, we have a knock off of the Meeko class but it does not have an area defense capability. These are cannon fodder for a couple of squadrons of SU27. When they are expended, there is nothing left to stop that large fleet of heavy lift ships that are to the north.

[@thejeffinvade]

Australia has the geopolitical need to invest in a good Navy. Canada has none.

[@Will_CH1]

thejeffinvade. Are you saying that because we have a neighbor with a fleet of 30 landing ships with 5 more under construction? That equates to a first wave of about 355 tanks (including leopard 2) and supporting infantry to oppose our 55 M1A1. I don't hear much about this threat in the press.

[@watermirror]

Is it true the 127mm main gun will be the 54cal? Not the 60cal? If so, is it because they'll reuse the to be retired Anzac's 54cals? If not, why 54cal?

[@michaelkavanagh5947]

Australia needs a QE carrier. Do a trade & defense pact build it at cost in Australia. They could easily run one. The designs and know how are done. Let's get them one to keep the Chinease at bay. Looking forward to a Australia UK deal.

[@EdGeyy]

Hopefully, this will become a reality.

[@sufianansari4923]

I am sure it will - they have already started building it

[@theslicefactor5326]

They have?

[@SteveJones-om6ks]

Not for Australia - they've cut steel on the first uk hull.

[@sufianansari4923]

That is true but do you think they are going to be mad enough to miss a multi billion dollar contract from Australia

[@SteveJones-om6ks]

I think BAE would trip over themselves trying to win the Aussie order. I actually think its the right hull for the Aussies requirements as well given their interest in modularity and offboard systems. Doesn't mean the Aussies will play ball and go for it though.

[@aaronbartlett6547]

Could the Aegis system be incorporated into these ships?

[@o.fuentes5958]

no, i mean its so hard and cost are high to do it, so basically no

[@jimbob1427]

Yes they are getting aegis systems

[@valenrn8657]

Aegis is a requirement for SEA 5000 program.

[@buenoobra3443]

..they say that this is just a frigate and not a destroyer... nevertheless, it is a pretty ship...

[@RR-us2kp]

Frigate and destroyer are not fixed terms. Some countries have frigates which are larger than other country's destroyers.

[@616CC]

The Tonnage is more similar to that of a traditional cruiser honestly

[@Autofleet4429]

Royal Navy/Royal Australian Navy doctrine has their ships classified by role not tonnage/armament. AAW/Flagship = Destroyer ASW/General-Purpose = Frigate

[@gicking3898]

Why does it only have 32 VLS missile cells? An arleigh Bourke, which is only 10 m longer, has 96.

[@wattlebough]

I was asking the same thing about the Air Warfare Destroyers with only 42 cell MLS, as opposed to the DDG51 AB option, which DoD rejected. Foolishly imo.

[@valenrn8657]

GICking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate Type 26's VLS specs. Anti-air missiles: VLS Sea Ceptor total of 48 cells:[11] (these VLS cells are smaller when compared to Mk 41 VLS) CAMM missiles (range 1-25+ km) Strike-length VLS: 24-cell strike-length Mk 41 VLS for possible: Tomahawk, ASROC and LRASM[11][12] BAE has to compete against evolved F100 with 48 cell Mk 41 VLS. F-100/AWD's 48 cells Mk 41 VLS could be configured with 32 cell Mk 41 VLS for SM2/SM6 (32 missile) 16 cell Mk 41 VLS for quad packed ESSM (64 missiles, +50 Km range) These ships can be fitted with SeaRAM for increased A2A missile loads (similar to CAMM missiles range) BAE should deliver matching or superior solution over F-100.

[@jimbob1427]

M L it's lowest risk but it's not designed as an anti submarine ship. The two biggest disadvantages it has over the other contenders is that 1, it's acoustics are not as good as the others and it doesn't have an electric drive option.

[@valenrn8657]

It would be better for Type 26 to include 48 cell Mk 41 VLS i.pinimg.com/originals/53/3f/99/533f996b0be9073788e0e0061a1d322a.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/b6/18/ed/b618eda33b015ac563596700cee22372.jpg Type 26 model for Sea 5000 with 32 cell Mk 41 VLS. There's extra space for more VLS.

[@jimbob1427]

Has to have 42 to contend for the contract ....

[@robertchinnock8017]

Will these be built in australia ?

[@timblizzard4226]

Wayne Haile - No nuclear propulsion on the first generation.

[@ooopsyantsoshadrytv-2911]

English & Australia

[@SpectreOZ]

Stuff Nuclear... give em' some of those souped up Sterling Engines like the Swedes use 👍

[@RR-us2kp]

@Wayne Haile Australia doesn't use nuclear power. They don't even allow nuclear powered ships into their ports. So even US aircraft carriers aren't allowed. Respect to the Aussies for that.

[@blank.9301]

Wayne Haile And Adelaide I think too

[@Pincer88]

Yes, very interesting: jobs. How about the combat abilities? Can it defeat salvos of Brahmos high supersonic anti ship missiles? Can it detect, track and disable advanced, super silent submarines, before they do it the other way around? Can it withstand EMP or heavy EW, without losing its critical combat functions, the way the Arleigh Burke-class DDGs seem so vulnerable to? Can it operate with minimal support of air defence destroyers and fleet oilers? And equally important: can it be deliverend on time and within budget? (Industry has dveloped a nasty habit of underpricing at first and project far too rosy timetables). Seems to me BAe Systems is now down the same road as Lockheed Martin in PR matters: don't sell the ship and its qualities (or the lack thereof), but organize political support for it. If that's the dominant way of doing business in the defence industry (and politicians buy into it - and boy do they), the West will soon be toothless while the share holders of big defence companies 'cry all the way to the bank.' It's about time states started to renationalize the defence industry and put a tight control over them, otherwise we'll all end up with overpriced and useless weapon systems that cannot win battles anymore.

[@Nicyarrr]

Due to the Australian Politcal landscape, lobbying is a necesary evil. But BAE with Type 26 were the only SEA5000 bidder to openly present all of the ships technical detail and capability at a recent Australian conference. It showed that all the hard work at design stage is done. Fincantieri made an effort but not as much info, and Navantia were non-existent.

[@valenrn8657]

Nicyarrr , Navantia is offering F-5000 (Evolved F-100) with the same 48 cell Mk41 VLS as current Hobart class, two hangers and improvement with lower acoustics . I prefer Type 26 to win but it must be competitive.

[@jeffpollard7304]

Yes, next question?

[@bossdog1480]

Are we going to have enough crew to man these new ships? I saw a vid that said some Anzacs are idle due to lack of crew. Is it a problem with manpower or a problem with Anzacs?

[@kempmt1]

Was this ship ever considered for the American FFG(X) competition?

[@TT-hd3zi]

Yes, initially, but it was disqualified because it is purely a design and not an existing ship.

[@nebojosanep5175]

this awesome ship than admiral gorshov

[@eouzcuemarz3114]

Neboj Osanep Lol, Gorshkov will sink this expensive ship

[@crazyt1ger08]

Eouz Cuemarz Gorshkov is under tow from its escort tug, it won't be sinking anything anytime soon.......

[@eouzcuemarz3114]

crazyt1ger08 Don't worry it's long range super sonic anti-ship missile doesn't need any tug boat to get the job done.

[@crazyt1ger08]

Eouz Cuemarz So they got their Windows 3.1 update then?

[@eouzcuemarz3114]

crazyt1ger08 Their not using windows but Android 7.1.1 Nougat, upgradable to Oreo. lol

[@silverdart333]

Is this confirmed for RAN?

[@militarycentral2031]

no

[@liamsmith3067]

I really hope it will be

[@samriberi5513]

silverdart333 Still in the works, but loom at it!? Its an amazing ship and i doubt the RAN will turn it down, about time to replace to ANZACS, as much as it'll pain me we gotta upgrade

[@silverdart333]

Bear ribz as long as they let you build it in Australia with your own steel I'd say go for it, Canada is also looking at this design as a possible replacement for our Halifax class Frigates though I think the Spanish destroyer/Australian Hobart class would be much better.

[@samriberi5513]

silverdart333 yeah im fairly sure i saw something about a lot of new Australian job opportunities with this ship, im fairly sure we're replacing all out ANZACS with them eventually. Canada should invest in these ships and have a navy structured similar to the RAN, which is based off the Royal Navy, these ships would really bring some new and advanced technological capabilities for both Australia and Canada as well as improve our international partners in times of peace, war and disasters.

[@setarita]

Soooo did this happen or...?

[@jaredgarbo3679]

Yes, they bought 9

[@sturgeonslaw9287]

That is one awesome cartoon ship there, and doubtless is effective against enemy cartoon aircraft, cartoon submarines, and cartoon surface ships.

[@jacksparrow9083]

Sturgeon's Law really? Just really?

[@douglasnakamura6753]

You would be amazed how much cartoons influence defence spending.

[@abbamanic]

I know, the cartoon bargain basement collins class us subs made everyone laugh as well. Buy italian, the galley will be bigger the guns smaller.

[@brentoninsertname5948]

Nine is not enough

[@blank.9301]

Brenton Ryan Ikr, especially that we have 10 atm (6 Anzac class, 4 Adelaide class) plus 3 destoyers

[@FlgOff044038]

A Turnbull Turkey chosen by "Blubber woman".

[@danmacalpinbruce2555]

How come modern ships dont have many guns on them?

[@robman2095]

Missiles

[@urseliusurgel4365]

They are automated and have a very rapid rate of fire. It is difficult to carry the number of shells that would make having multiple main guns viable. Also the space that a second gun would take up tends to be occupied by missile silos and helicopter facilities. Those ships, like some French ships, that have multiple main guns tend to have small-calibre main guns (

[@DavidOlver]

we need 8 of them

[@valenrn8657]

Australia's SEA 5000 has 9 units.

[@magikbandit38]

we need 15 i reckon.

[@1guitarlover]

As of today, the RAN is thinking about building 3 additional Hobart Class destroyers. This project has proven to be over costly, delayed and just a curtain of smoke. This Type-X frigate is beautiful only in computer based design. It does not exist. Thanks God that Spanish Navantia will come to support once again our friends in the RAN.

[@michaelkekoc4432]

Why don't Australia get destroyers? It seems like they are the best multipurpose ship, don't get me wrong these things are pretty sweet, but it seems like destroyers would be the way to go

[@jimbob1427]

Michael Kekoc we have brand new destroyers, they are Hobart class.

[@michaelkekoc4432]

jim bob arent they less multi role though since they AWD

[@jimbob1427]

Michael Kekoc the government wants the new frigates to be an anti submarine platform . With air defense capabilities . They will be fitted aegis so will be extremely capable .

[@michaelkekoc4432]

jim bob oh that's sweet as Australia up and coming naval power

[@jimbob1427]

Michael Kekoc the government is spending 24 billion on our military on top of the money the military already gets.

[@leonbugstarog2575]

Wow its looks simple butvits most powefull ship i wish that philippine can produce same as this the shape is very modern unique disign is un ecplainable ship unticipating untouchable and very advance trchnology system

[@m3cvfm]

How much is it in English pounds

[@tesstickle7267]

tom taxi expensive lol the british type 26's will cost more than the type 45 destoryers..thats around 1.2 billion per ship.

[@m3cvfm]

Lewis Pollard Thank you for the info. Kind regards tom

[@tesstickle7267]

tom taxi no worries,its worth looking into as i will be wrong on accurate figures but that's pretty close to what information i have. I would assume the aussies ships being less expensive (as that's a fair hefty price tag for Australia,cheaper for them and Britain to buy type 45 destoryers lol ) either way it'll be a very good ship.

[@ollie1154]

tom taxi it's actually closer to £1bn per ship. 8 ships have been ordered (built to the original Royal Navy specification not the Commonwealth Export specification as seen in the video) the cost for all 8 is £8bn including R&D. The Royal Navy have also ordered 6 type 31 Frigates from BAE systems for roughly £2bn. Our navy needs more ships but it's a start

[@angelluisll1033]

So Aliens have a better Naval Ship than the Earthlings?

[@bambang303378]

Well. Several years back BAE was bragging about how awesome the 997 Artisan radar. So they type 26 was marketed with typ 997 radar. But in this infomercial it is obvious that the radar is not type 997. The question is: If 997 is so awesome, why not install them in type 26? If BAE was wrong about 997, what else they can be wrong about? Quality of this ship perhaps?

[@boogle785]

The australian ceafar radar is along with israeli and swedish designs the leading technological radar system in the world. there would not be a hairs breath between them with US commanders extremely impressed with the ossie designs.

[@abbamanic]

I hope Australia, Canada and New Zealand buy quality over US cast-offs and get the Global Ship. Interoperability would be much improved. But politics always gets in the way.

[@valenrn8657]

USN's Burke class has 96 cell MK 41 VLS... it's not US cast-offs.

[@johngodden4363]

New ZeLand won’t be buying such a large vessel. They will likely go for one of similar size to the ANZAC in service ( between 3000 - 4000 tons ) Canada may well choose the type 26 but it will be fitted out with the basic design and weapons with modifications using Canadian systems. Budget constraints may reduce the number of ships ordered though.

[@jeffpollard7304]

@@valenrn8657 USN Burke class is a destroyer I think, type 26 is a frigate 1.

[@valenrn8657]

@@jeffpollard7304 AU's Type 26 8,800 tons displacement is higher than Arleigh Burke Flight 1 (8,100 tons) and 2 (8,300 tons). UK's Type 26 has 8000+ ton displacement.

[@alpearson9158]

@@johngodden4363 the Canadian ship will primarily be an anti-submarine vessel as that is what Canada has excelled at since ww2

[@josephstalin3129]

Australia, weaponize your animals!

[@Will_CH1]

release the drop bears

[@tobycorbett3136]

Combat Wombats

[@crazyt1ger08]

Joseph Stalin Australia already has the seven deadliest snakes in the world after the Sea Snake.....

[@anthonykelly5352]

@@crazyt1ger08 actually we have all ten of the deadliest snakes and the Fierce snake, or western taipan is deadliest, deadlier than any sea snake or anything else except for the box and irakandji jellyfish, blue ringed octopus and cone shell, all of which are in the oceans surrounding Australia. And the Funnel Web spider, salt water crocodile, sharks, lots and lots of sharks and................

[@tonyl4571]

50 cal Emus

[@jorgeestrada5713]

For the B.A.E.: The concept Global Combat Ship is not a Universal concept, or category. For this ship, the most appropriate categorization could be: Frigate. Who are you to come and change things?

[@Nathanct43]

the Global Combat Ship moniker is there cause it's being exported for the global market as well as the Royal Navy. It's classification has been advertised as a Frigate.

[@Olive_Chap]

Vishakapatnam Class Ships along with these would be strong detterance to Communist party in South China Sea.. 👍🏿

[@Makeyourselfbig]

Global eh? Well the globe is a pretty big place. Just how many of these "Global" ships can Australia afford?

[@davidotoole1308]

9 for $35 Billion Australian dollars.

[@robman2095]

It is called the global combat ship by the Brits because it’s been designed for a global market