Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would be careful branding it "Aegis". Are the NZ Anzac frigates now Aegis Destroyers? Can it CEC weapons and sensors of multiple platforms? Its is able to fire and direct SM-3 to make orbital interceptions? Even in true Aegis implementations there are real and significant limitations depending on the version of Aegis and its implementation. Not all Aegis implementations can do both modes and not all are capable of all tasks and some have significant limitations that involve a complete re-system to get around. Most of the advanced features like CEC and BMD are separate optional components or rely on additional hardware.

CMS330 seems to be able to have slightly tighter integration into Aegis components, but that doesn't make it Aegis implementation we know as used on American ships.


Aegis Combat System - Wikipedia


There have been much about making Aegis based on Open systems and OTS technology.

Canada’s Department of National Defence also selected Lockheed Martin as the naval radar provider for its 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. Lockheed Martin’s IAFCL is integrated with Canada’s combat management system, CMS 330, developed by Lockheed Martin Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy’s HALIFAX Class ships. The program will make Canada the owner of the world’s second largest Aegis fleet, and our SPY-7 radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions for decades to come.
Apparently utilizing IAFCL (international Aegis Fire control) is now enough to class a ship as Aegis by LM. The Fire control loop doesn't inherently give any CEC or BMD capability. I don't think it gives LAMPS or other side features either. The radar is quite modern, but again, compared to the previous generation Aegis units. There are other modern advanced radars being produced outside of LM.

While Canada may have the 2nd largest Aegis fleet on paper at time I would be surprised if it ends up that way.
  • Spain currently operates 4 with 5 more on order (F110).
  • Japan operates 4 + 4 + 2 (by 2021) with more in the pipe - Significantly the last 2 with SM-3 & CEC capability.
  • Australia operates 3 with 9 + 3. All apparently with CEC and likely to be upgraded to BMD capability (probably through Sm-6, but with SM-3 ready).
  • South Korea already has 3 large aegis ships building at least 3 more.
I would be surprised if Canada ended up with a larger Aegis fleet than say Japan. I doubt Japan is going to stop building aegis ships. It tends to build 1 each year. It will have 10 before Canada cuts steel on its first one so unless Canada is able to commission its entire order of 15 ships in 5< years I doubt it will be the 2nd largest Aegis fleet. IMO it would be some years before Canada overtakes Spain/Australia/SKorea with operational Aegis ships. I doubt Canada will ever operate a more capable aegis fleet (VLS/Capability/tonnage), so 2nd biggest fleet is perhaps a bit of a bold boast.

Not trying to be negative, just calming down some of the LM marketing talk.
Why acquire the SM-3 and SM-2, when you could acquire the SM-6 which covers both roles. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Sm-3 is in a very different class to SM-6. SM-6 is multi role and is capable of very terminal (ie extremely imminent) interception of smaller BM. Something like SCUD. Sm-2 block IV is also sort of capable of this. SM-3 is capable of much greater reach (particularly more recent blocks), for far more capable and threatening ICBMs outside of terminal phase (boosting or low mid phase or early re-entry, out in space).

Sm-3 is ultra expensive per shot. It is effectively still in development, although I don't expect the hardware or the configuration to change from its recent size increase.

The Aegis ballistic missile defense system uses three families of interceptor missiles: Raytheon’s Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV, the SM-6, and the SM-3. Both the SM-2 and SM-6 interceptors are designed for terminal intercept in the atmosphere, while the SM-3 is designed for exoatmospheric midcourse intercept.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680055
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would be careful branding it "Aegis". Are the NZ Anzac frigates now Aegis Destroyers? Can it CEC weapons and sensors of multiple platforms? Its is able to fire and direct SM-3 to make orbital interceptions? Even in true Aegis implementations there are real and significant limitations depending on the version of Aegis and its implementation. Not all Aegis implementations can do both modes and not all are capable of all tasks and some have significant limitations that involve a complete re-system to get around. Most of the advanced features like CEC and BMD are separate optional components or rely on additional hardware.
No the RNZN ANZACs aren't, however the CMS330 being developed for the RCN CSC iill be an upgraded variant of the CMS330 which is supposed to have the AEGIS capability within it. Since CMS330 is a LM product it should be reasonably straight forward, probably much easier than the RAN CMS integration of AEGIS.
 

Calculus

Active Member
I would be careful branding it "Aegis". Are the NZ Anzac frigates now Aegis Destroyers? Can it CEC weapons and sensors of multiple platforms? Its is able to fire and direct SM-3 to make orbital interceptions? Even in true Aegis implementations there are real and significant limitations depending on the version of Aegis and its implementation. Not all Aegis implementations can do both modes and not all are capable of all tasks and some have significant limitations that involve a complete re-system to get around. Most of the advanced features like CEC and BMD are separate optional components or rely on additional hardware.

CMS330 seems to be able to have slightly tighter integration into Aegis components, but that doesn't make it Aegis implementation we know as used on American ships.


Aegis Combat System - Wikipedia


There have been much about making Aegis based on Open systems and OTS technology.
The infographic you pulled out of Wikipedia above does NOT show that open systems version of Aegis, which is more commonly known as the Common Source Library (Aegis CSL). Not sure why you chose to reference it, as it does not represent the system going in to the CSC and F110 classes. Aegis CSL is the core of the modernized “Aegis Combat System”, and is the new Aegis standard going forward, and has been since baseline 9. What you showed above is basically the original Aegis architecture from the 1970s, which is a bunch of very specialized MilStd hardware and software controlling disparate weapons and systems. The CSL takes all that hardware and software and distills it into one large software package that is designed to run on COTS hardware (blade servers), so it is relatively easy to add capability (just write more code), and easy to upgrade (or replace) the computers running this code. It’s also significantly less expensive than custom built hardware, making it affordable to mid-tier navies like the RCN and Armada. Aegis CSL is what will be installed on the CSC (with an upgraded version of CMS 330 as the "user interface", for lack of a better description), as well as the F110 (with Scomba as the user interface). There is no doubt about the branding - this system will be FULLY AEGIS.

Here is an interesting presentation showing the evolution of the Aegis combat system from MilStd to full COTS: http://www.artist-embedded.org/docs/Events/2011/JTRES/Slides/JTRES-Winkler.pdf

For those of you with USNI membership, this is one of the best descriptions of the CSL: Naval Systems - Aegis Common Source Library—Continuous Evolution of Capability
Apparently utilizing IAFCL (international Aegis Fire control) is now enough to class a ship as Aegis by LM. The Fire control loop doesn't inherently give any CEC or BMD capability. I don't think it gives LAMPS or other side features either. The radar is quite modern, but again, compared to the previous generation Aegis units. There are other modern advanced radars being produced outside of LM.
The FCL is a model, and describes, conceptually, the systems and processes required to detect a target, track a target, and guide a weapon towards the target. It does not have capabilities, so that comment is lost on me. The “loop” is the communications loop between all the systems controlling that weapon. Just like the OSI model for networks (The OSI model explained: How to understand (and remember) the 7 layer network model), it’s a simplistic way of describing the complex interactions between all the systems needed to get a successful intercept (detecting, tracking, targeting, engaging, weapon course correction, etc..). The IAFCL is less clear, but from inference we can assume it is the Aegis FCL with new (which mostly means non-USN, or "International") systems. For CSC those would be SPY-7, CAMM, MASS, CANEWS, ULTRA electronics sonar, etc., etc.). All of the software associated with these new systems will be part of the CSL, which means it will be that much simpler to implement new capabilities on another class of ship as long as it also has the Aegis CSL. So, for example, once CAMM is part of the CSL, the USN could relatively easily adopt that missile, especially with ExLS now available.
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Active Member
No the RNZN ANZACs aren't, however the CMS330 being developed for the RCN CSC iill be an upgraded variant of the CMS330 which is supposed to have the AEGIS capability within it. Since CMS330 is a LM product it should be reasonably straight forward, probably much easier than the RAN CMS integration of AEGIS.
Exactly right ngati. From what we know from interviews with LM in Canadian defence journals the changes will be mostly to the displays (larger), and the processors/storage (faster and larger). There will obviously be some software changes as well, to incorporate the Aegis CSL, and probably some updates to the interface, but those parts have not been publicly discussed (to my knowledge).
 

Calculus

Active Member
Ceremonial keel laying for JSS at Seaspan tomorrow: Ceremonial keel laying for future Joint Support Ship - Canada.ca

Perhaps there will also be some more announcements. At this point they are advertising 2023 and 2025 for acceptance into service of JSS1 and 2, so presumably sometime towards the end of 2021 (or early 2022) for JSS1's builder's trials. It would be nice for them to announce they have crashed the schedule and will deliver earlier...
 

seaspear

Active Member
With regards to the sm6 missiles there is in development the sm-6 block 1b as with the sm6 can also be used as an anti surface missile but has the diameter of twenty one inches as opposed to the sm-6 13 to be able maximise the usage of space of the VLS tubes .
on the ships this will have a longer range increased payload is capable of guidance by other cec equiped units and adopts a ballistic approach to its target ,if a ship was to launch the sm-6 1b with conventional anti ship missiles at the same time the opposing ship would have to have its radars able to perform anti ballistic and anti air at the same time ,there are claims that no radars exist that can do this, there also may be in future air and sub surfaced versions of this
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The infographic you pulled out of Wikipedia above does NOT show that open systems version of Aegis
Sorry was looking for a better one of that, forgot it was there. The briefing you attached is very imformative.

There is no doubt about the branding - this system will be FULLY AEGIS.
yes it seems LM is quite happy about that. Or as some papers have put it a carefully function subset of aegis..


The IAFCL is less clear, but from inference we can assume it is the Aegis FCL with new (which mostly means non-USN, or "International") systems. For CSC those would be SPY-7, CAMM, MASS, CANEWS, ULTRA electronics sonar, etc., etc.). All of the software associated with these new systems will be part of the CSL, which means it will be that much simpler to implement new capabilities on another class of ship as long as it also has the Aegis CSL. So, for example, once CAMM is part of the CSL, the USN could relatively easily adopt that missile, especially with ExLS now available.
This is the bit I am curious about, for both CSC and the Oz hunter class (and future Aegis ships).

The hunters as I understand using the lcaol SAAB 9lv for the consoles, and I had heard rumors that non US weapon systems like say CAMM, could be integrated effectively at the console level (CMS330/9LV) and the non US integrated stuff would go to the CMS/9LV FCL, while SM-2/6/3/ESSM would go through the Aegis FCL, seamlessly from the console (is this how Japan and korea integrate their weapons into older Aegis?). But your saying its a much more open and tighter integration than this and that the integration sits within Aegis and its CSL environment, its effectively directly integrated with Aegis just as any USN system or weapon would be?
I assume its the same with the radars.

I am curious to see what happens with CAMM. I assume if Canada integrates it, it means other countries like Australia could adopt it very easily as well. particularly as the Type26 design has significant CAMM capability in addition to its front mounted mk 41 vls.
 

Calculus

Active Member
Sorry was looking for a better one of that, forgot it was there. The briefing you attached is very imformative.


yes it seems LM is quite happy about that. Or as some papers have put it a carefully function subset of aegis..



This is the bit I am curious about, for both CSC and the Oz hunter class (and future Aegis ships).

The hunters as I understand using the lcaol SAAB 9lv for the consoles, and I had heard rumors that non US weapon systems like say CAMM, could be integrated effectively at the console level (CMS330/9LV) and the non US integrated stuff would go to the CMS/9LV FCL, while SM-2/6/3/ESSM would go through the Aegis FCL, seamlessly from the console (is this how Japan and korea integrate their weapons into older Aegis?). But your saying its a much more open and tighter integration than this and that the integration sits within Aegis and its CSL environment, its effectively directly integrated with Aegis just as any USN system or weapon would be?
I think you are spot on in that both scenarios are possible (we know for example that CAMM is already integrated with CMS330 at the "console level" as a result of the RNZN frigate updates), but the advantage of integrating at the CSL level is it makes that capability available to other users, and simplifies the hardware infrastructure. If the work has already been done, however, at the console level, I don't know if the effort will be made right away to port this capability over to CSL. Presumably it would, at some point, given this is the advantage of the CSL, but perhaps this would explain why some systems would be at the console level and others at the CSL level.
LM kind of touches on this at the following link (scroll about halfway down, under Common Source Library): Evolutionary Design. It should be noted that COMBATSS 21 also uses the CSL (Integrating the Aegis Derived COMBATSS-21 with the Littoral Combat Ship)
I am curious to see what happens with CAMM. I assume if Canada integrates it, it means other countries like Australia could adopt it very easily as well. particularly as the Type26 design has significant CAMM capability in addition to its front mounted mk 41 vls.
Yes, I believe if Australia adopts the CSL model with the Hunters, and there is every indication they are, the theory is once CAMM (or any other system for that matter) is added, Australia could also adopt that system. However, the models I have seen of the Hunter show that the superstructure feature aft of the funnel on the UK and Canadian T26s (where the CAMM launchers are located) is eliminated on the Hunter, so adopting CAMM would mean using the forward Mk41 cells (with an ExLS insert). In any case, CSL appears to be incredibly flexible, and somewhat of a game changer, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Active Member
Ceremonial keel laying for JSS at Seaspan tomorrow: Ceremonial keel laying for future Joint Support Ship - Canada.ca

Perhaps there will also be some more announcements. At this point they are advertising 2023 and 2025 for acceptance into service of JSS1 and 2, so presumably sometime towards the end of 2021 (or early 2022) for JSS1's builder's trials. It would be nice for them to announce they have crashed the schedule and will deliver earlier...
Done: Seaspan Shipyards hosts ceremonial keel laying for the Royal Canadian Navy's future Joint Support Ship

I will try to find some pictures and post them later.
 

Mattshel

Member
More CSC information confirming Aegis as well as a first time confirmation (as far as I am aware) that MDA will be designing and fabricating the X-Band Antenna Radar.

Lockheed was also exhibiting a CSC model at SNA 2020 again this year, I would expect to see some interviews with the Lockheed staff at the show being published over the next few days that may give us more insight into things as well.

SNA 2020: Beyond AEGIS ASHORE
 

Rangitoto

Member
Yes, I believe if Australia adopts the CSL model with the Hunters, and there is every indication they are...
Yeah, they have to be. The Aegis CSL removes the dependence of the AAW system on the SPY-1 radar. If they weren't using Aegis CSL they wouldn't be able to integrate the CEAFAR 2 radar into the system.
 

Rangitoto

Member
I am laying this on Procurement Canada as I doubt anyone in the Navy is recommending only 24 cells.
Even though 24 cells seems light, it still potentially represents a potent AAW capability. For example:
16 x SM-2/3/6
32 x ESSM blk 2
24 x CAMM

That's 72 SAMs. Compare that to the Type 45's 48 SAMs. Sure it doesn't have the long range sustainability of a dedicated AAW vessel, but it's pretty good for a frigate who's main strength is ASW.
 

Calculus

Active Member
More CSC information confirming Aegis as well as a first time confirmation (as far as I am aware) that MDA will be designing and fabricating the X-Band Antenna Radar.

Lockheed was also exhibiting a CSC model at SNA 2020 again this year, I would expect to see some interviews with the Lockheed staff at the show being published over the next few days that may give us more insight into things as well.

SNA 2020: Beyond AEGIS ASHORE
@Mattshel, I only read that MDA was going to "furnish" the X-band radar. Where did you see they are designing and fabricating it?
 

Calculus

Active Member
Even though 24 cells seems light, it still potentially represents a potent AAW capability. For example:
16 x SM-2/3/6
32 x ESSM blk 2
24 x CAMM

That's 72 SAMs. Compare that to the Type 45's 48 SAMs. Sure it doesn't have the long range sustainability of a dedicated AAW vessel, but it's pretty good for a frigate who's main strength is ASW.
Agreed. I think it will be 32, because that would give you a semi-decent AAW capability with all cells packed with SM-x (and 24 CAMM for self defence), but 24 ain't bad.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@Mattshel, I only read that MDA was going to "furnish" the X-band radar. Where did you see they are designing and fabricating it?
Probably the last paragraph and that's how I have read the article as well.
"The company is partnering with Indra (Spain) on the F-110’s radar. Lemmo noted that, in this case, Indra will build components of the radar in Spain, “using the same architecture, same design.”
 

Calculus

Active Member
Canada_JSS.jpg
More on the "ceremonial" keel laying for the first JSS: Seaspan lays Keel for Royal Canadian Navy’s First Joint Support Ship, HMCS Protecteur

The ships will reputedly have 2 CIWS (Phalanx 1b baseline 2), 4 RWS (.50 cal), full NBC citadel, Nixie torpedo decoy, Saab AMB radar, CMS 330, a full C&C suite, 45-bed hospital facility (with operating rooms), and hangar space for two CH-148s (including a comprehensive maintenance facility for "better than first-line" helicopter repair). They will also be ice hardened, and I've seen mentioned this would be to PC5.

Some recent photos of the construction of the various blocks here:Joint Support Ships | Seaspan
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
View attachment 47057
More on the "ceremonial" keel laying for the first JSS: Seaspan lays Keel for Royal Canadian Navy’s First Joint Support Ship, HMCS Protecteur

The ships will reputedly have 2 CIWS (Phalanx 1b baseline 2), 4 RWS (.50 cal), full NBC citadel, Nixie torpedo decoy, Saab AMB radar, CMS 330, a full C&C suite, 45-bed hospital facility (with operating rooms), and hangar space for two CH-148s (including a comprehensive maintenance facility for "better than first-line" helicopter repair). They will also be ice hardened, and I've seen mentioned this would be to PC5.

Some recent photos of the construction of the various blocks here:Joint Support Ships | Seaspan
Thanks for that info and pics.
Despite some negativity around Seaspan and the JSS programme sometimes expressed on this forum, significant progress has been made.
One observation I have is that the hull shape has quite complex curves cf many commercial hulls and this must lead to cost increases.
 

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
Even though 24 cells seems light, it still potentially repres
Thanks for that info and pics.
Despite some negativity around Seaspan and the JSS programme sometimes expressed on this forum, significant progress has been made.
One observation I have is that the hull shape has quite complex curves cf many commercial hulls and this must lead to cost increases.
To be fair, it is right to be informed of what is happening, but I also like to give the industries the benefit of the doubt; both Irving and Seaspan. It is tricky business managing multi-billion dollar contracts/projects. I have been involved in several mining projects of that magnitude, and sh*t always happens - "challenges" as the bosses like to call them.

It is easy to be a reporter writing about some welding issue or other problem and criticize, a lot more difficult to acknowledge the challenge, and come up with a cost effective solution.

I think what separates good companies from great ones is not their ability to avoid problems - these are inevitable - it is in how they deal with them that matters. So far I think Seaspan has done well in dealing with the challenges they have faced. Hopefully they continue down that route.
 
Top