Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Shouldn't be an issue at all. Likely citizens were mostly concerned about missile misfires as opposed to microwave radiation concerns although the Japanese are sensitive to radiation exposure for several understandable reasons. Neither are concerns for naval vessels. Perhaps additional naval systems would be more advantageous for Japan as opposed to static vulnerable installations or as some have suggested, invest in a better offensive capability like hypersonic strike missiles.
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Why would the Japanese problems impact upon the Canadian and Spanish acquisitions? The Japanese one is an ashore installation so a different set of issues that have to be mitigated. Did you actually fully read the article and think about the context?
The technology behind the "Naval" version of Lockheed Martins SPY 7(V) 1 LRDR is sound, and Japan putting the LM SPY 7(V) I Aegis ashore sites on indefinite hold IOT mitigate their own "issues" with this radar, should not interfere with Canada's or Spain's acquisition of the Naval installation version of this radar. All CDN radar operators and technicians understand the principles of this radar and know that the SPY 7(V) 1 is an excellent choice for the RCN, however, you can bet the Canadian "bottom dollar" that at the very least the Canadian government is querying LM as we speak, on Japan's SPY 7(V) 1 Aegis ashore issues with the land version of this radar system and what effects (if any) it may have on the CSC Frigate installations. Governments are funny that way when billions of CDN dollars are about to be spent on at least 15 of these radar systems (along with ashore radar training systems). One thing I do understand are naval radar systems, as that was my job for 41 1/2 years in the RCN and at the very least know how naval radar platforms operate and understand that radiation issues are not an issue for ships if shielded properly. It is taking Japan much longer than they would like to get these two Aegis sites up and running mostly because of the second site location, but also the issue with the SM-3 boosters not to mention the timing with COVID-19, and yes the opposition by the Japanese people perhaps because of radiation fears. And yes, I have actually "fully" read the War Zone article (several times).
 

Underway

New Member
@David, thing that always drives me nuts is the concern about "radiation". People just don't understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@David, thing that always drives me nuts is the concern about "radiation". People just don't understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Agree totally Underway. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers!;)
TELL THAT TO BRIDGE OFFICERS FROM THE COLD WAR PERIOD AND LATER WHO NOW HAVE TUMOURS THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED. NO NEED FOR THIS CRAP. SO DIAL BACK THE ATTITUDES.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Ananda’s link in the Japanese Ground Forces thread provides some additional insight wrt Japan’s decision to delay their Aegis Ashore project. The actual radar selection Itself may also be an issue.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ananda’s link in the Japanese Ground Forces thread provides some additional insight wrt Japan’s decision to delay their Aegis Ashore project. The actual radar selection Itself may also be an issue.

Yep, also it appears that they stuffed up on one of the sites by using Google Earth imagery for their calculations and not ground truthing it. For a project of such importance, they would've been far better to have had a survey team run a RTK GPS over the site. From memory the accuracy is +/- 3 mm; been quite a while since I used one. The JGSDF certainly have engineers with those skills. I can't understand why they didn't do that because it's a basic error that has been made.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
It is basically local politics where the councils and prefectural governments have had a fit. It has been in the Japanese media for a few years now. The JGSDF has had consultation meeting after consultation meeting with councils and the public. Abu Town, Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the council report that the preferred Aegis Ashore site is just 100 metres away from residences and the other in Hagi City in Yamaguchi at the JGSDF Mutsumi Exercise Area has a missile corridor close to residential areas. The 3rd problem site is in Akita at the JGSDF Shinya Exercise Area. That is the problem with Japan every flat piece of space is either factories, houses, shops and rice paddies jammed in amongst steep mountain sides. Someone is always going to complain.

It is not really a stuff up - it is that Japan is a tricky place to find a home for something like this and the Defence Ministry site survey team argues that the location of sites is a geographical fine art as there is "no point in creating blind spots and gaps." It is essentially just suspended (and not cancelled) while they scope other sites.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Secondary guns: 2 x 30mm DSM 30 (Bushmaster 30mm) - presumed. (Could be the Mk38 25mm, for compatibility and supply chain reasons with the AOPVs)
I only just noticed that BAE has started offering Rafael's latest Typhoon Mk-30c as the BAE 30 mm MGS since December 2019. The advantages over the existing Typhoon/Mk38 include the adoption of the 30 mm Bushmaster, more than double the ready ammunition, and being better at aerial engagements, presumably more UAV focused than anti-missile, due to being capable of elevations above 65 degrees compared to just 40 degrees and being able to fire Air Burst Munitions. Limited aerial engagement capability should hopefully make the 25 mm Mk38 less likely, while BAE would likely push hard for their own 30 mm MGS since Canada isn't an existing 30 mm DSM 30 user but does use the 25 mm Typhoon and the 12.7 mm Mini-Typhoon which have commonality.
It should be remembered that most 25 / 30 mm guns started life as 'surface targets only' guns & have been adapted for the aerial mode. Additionally, the 'accuracy' comes from the feed from the guidance system / radar track / plot accuracy, mixed with the munitions ability to 'react' to the target. noting that most shells are basically lead fired in a specific direction, rather than 'reactive shells' that actually sense the target, or are pre-programmed to explode at a set range.

The technology advances in the last 20 years in gun drive systems from analogue to digital have helped with this accuracy, as the lag time in getting the electric motor to actually start moving, by using thyristor drive technology, which means that electric motors are constantly be described 'vibrating', due to them being at a point of being able to rotate in either direction given the demand of the control circuitry, has also been a key development.

Finally, it should be noted that BAE don't actually produce a 30mm gun ( Products & Services ), but have experience of fitting / integrating & testing other companies weapons with their command system software, such as the MSI 30mm gun ( MSI-DS SEAHAWK DS A2 - MSI Defence Systems ). As can also be seen from the first link, they manufacture 30mm shells too.

SA
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is basically local politics where the councils and prefectural governments have had a fit. It has been in the Japanese media for a few years now. The JGSDF has had consultation meeting after consultation meeting with councils and the public. Abu Town, Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the council report that the preferred Aegis Ashore site is just 100 metres away from residences and the other in Hagi City in Yamaguchi at the JGSDF Mutsumi Exercise Area has a missile corridor close to residential areas. The 3rd problem site is in Akita at the JGSDF Shinya Exercise Area. That is the problem with Japan every flat piece of space is either factories, houses, shops and rice paddies jammed in amongst steep mountain sides. Someone is always going to complain.

It is not really a stuff up - it is that Japan is a tricky place to find a home for something like this and the Defence Ministry site survey team argues that the location of sites is a geographical fine art as there is "no point in creating blind spots and gaps." It is essentially just suspended (and not cancelled) while they scope other sites.
Thanks. The stuff up I was referring to was a technical one where inaccurate measurements were used for some of the sites, when placing facilities on the ground in the plans and drawings. Whilst Google Earth is good it's not accurate enough for work like that. To many errors in the quality of the measurement. That's what I was getting at.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It is basically local politics where the councils and prefectural governments have had a fit. It has been in the Japanese media for a few years now. The JGSDF has had consultation meeting after consultation meeting with councils and the public. Abu Town, Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the council report that the preferred Aegis Ashore site is just 100 metres away from residences and the other in Hagi City in Yamaguchi at the JGSDF Mutsumi Exercise Area has a missile corridor close to residential areas. The 3rd problem site is in Akita at the JGSDF Shinya Exercise Area. That is the problem with Japan every flat piece of space is either factories, houses, shops and rice paddies jammed in amongst steep mountain sides. Someone is always going to complain.

It is not really a stuff up - it is that Japan is a tricky place to find a home for something like this and the Defence Ministry site survey team argues that the location of sites is a geographical fine art as there is "no point in creating blind spots and gaps." It is essentially just suspended (and not cancelled) while they scope other sites.
Interesting, if the radar site is only 100 meters away from residences, I wonder what the rules are for Windmills. We have people here bitching about the 500 meter separation for them. Guess Huawei 5G stuff isn’t an issue in Japan.;)
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks. The stuff up I was referring to was a technical one where inaccurate measurements were used for some of the sites, when placing facilities on the ground in the plans and drawings. Whilst Google Earth is good it's not accurate enough for work like that. To many errors in the quality of the measurement. That's what I was getting at.
The Japanese possess world class GEOINT and Surveying capabilities. Personally I would not be speculating that from a Nikkei news article myself.
 

OldTex

Member
An article on the Naval News site indicates the issues were not RF radiation exposure but potential civilian injuries and damage from the expended SM-3 Mk 72 boosters, but also configuration support (SPY-7 with Aegis baseline 9) and Japanese industrial involvement. So not likely to affect either the Canadian or Spanish acquisitions.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Japanese possess world class GEOINT and Surveying capabilities. Personally I would not be speculating that from a Nikkei news article myself.
I know that, I have used their gear and it's the best around. But doesn't exclude the probability of the human factor either. Yes agree about the media source, my bad.
 

Albedo

Member
An article on the Naval News site indicates the issues were not RF radiation exposure but potential civilian injuries and damage from the expended SM-3 Mk 72 boosters, but also configuration support (SPY-7 with Aegis baseline 9) and Japanese industrial involvement. So not likely to affect either the Canadian or Spanish acquisitions.
I wasn't as much worried there's a technical problem with SPY-7 itself, but that Japan not using SPY-7 could end up increasing the costs for Canada. Japan's application may be land-based and BMD focused, but their program being several years ahead means they have been/would have continued to subsidize the basic work of integrating SPY-7 and AEGIS which would presumably be useful to and reduce the cost of the naval version. Also Japan using SPY-7 for LRDR would mean an existing, mature production line for SPY-7 modules would be in place by the time Canada started ordering which would lower costs. I believe only contracts for some early design work have been signed for the CSC so equipment costs haven't been fixed yet and the price for SPY-7 could go up if Japan has a long delay or pulls out.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Presumably, if Japan does eventually decide not to go with SPY-7 then the derisking you would have expected them to undertake will have to be done by somebody else - Canada? If so, that has potential challenges in both cost and schedule.
 

Albedo

Member
We seem to be forgetting that the first SPY-7 system is being installed in Alaska as part of the LRDR. The USA is doing the de-risking.

First LRDR Panels Delivered
Yes, you're right. I've been referring to the Japan Aegis Ashore occasionally as the LRDR when in fact the LRDR is separate and in Alaska. I think my concerns might still be valid though. LRDR construction should take care of maturing the SPY-7 module production line but costs could increase if Japan's delay or cancellation causes a gap in production between LRDR production and production for Canada and Spain. And I'm not sure LRDR integrates Aegis since the articles I've read on LRDR talk about Lockheed Martin being the developer of Aegis but don't seem to actually say LRDR incorporates Aegis so Japan may well have been the lead driver of SPY-7/Aegis integration to date.
 

Underway

New Member
TELL THAT TO BRIDGE OFFICERS FROM THE COLD WAR PERIOD AND LATER WHO NOW HAVE TUMOURS THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED. NO NEED FOR THIS CRAP. SO DIAL BACK THE ATTITUDES.
Your interpretation of attitude for those comments was your own bias. There wasn't one. It's irritating to me that people think radars cause cancer. Like its irritating that people think seat belts are a crash hazard or cell phones will cause brain tumors. Because non-ionizing radiation burns, causes cataracts, not cancer. Also, I will happily tell the bridge officers who have tumors that it was likely all the other toxins in their environment vice the non-conclusive science on EM and cancer. Perhaps it was all the PCBs or asbestos in the plumbing or wiring. Or the PCBs in the electrical equipment. Or the lead in the paint. Or constant sun exposure. Or the fact the ship was full of cigarette smoke constantly.

In your own words (paraphrased)

I AM A ROYAL CANADAIN NAVY CURRENTLY SERVING COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEER (20+ YEARS) AND A RADAR SAFETY OFFICER. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T NEED TO BE INSULTED BY A CONDESCENDING MODERATOR.

Lets add in DD's 40+ years as a technician. Now just to be clear, everything after the word "paraphrased" was attitude. :)
 
Top