Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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. :)
Actually, research is still ongoing regarding the question of RF/non-ionizing radiation causing cancer, more info can be found here.

It is also IMO very worthwhile noting that certain types of skin cancers, like Basal and Squamous Cell skin cancers are mostly caused by repeated exposure to UV rays from sunlight, as was as artificial sources like tanning beds, etc. See here for more info. Last I checked, UV radiation is also considered non-ionizing radiaton...

So yes, RF radiation can immediately cause radiation burns, but at least anecdotally repeated and long-term exposure can contribute to the development of cancers. Further, aside from possibly increasing the risk factors for developing cancers in the future, there would also be very real health concerns about people nearby radar installations possibly suffering radiation burns if the positioning and/or output was within certain parameters.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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. :)
If you have a problem with how a Moderator does their moderation take it up with that Moderator or another Moderator by private message, not on the open forum.

I have anecdotal evidence from naval veterans who have such tumours that can be associated with radiation. Apparently the tumours have a high probability of being caused by radiation. There has been significant work undertaken in the UK and NZ by nuclear test veterans groups that has significantly increased the knowledge of radiation induced tumours. I acknowledge that nuclear weapons radiation is different to RF radiation due to wavelengths and frequencies, but types of tumours can still be similar.

As a personal aside I do have friends who are nuclear test veterans and who's lives have been devastated by the long term effects of the tests. Unfortunately it not only affects them, it also affects their children and grandchildren because the radiation has changed their DNA, so they are passing down who knows what to their future generations.

So yes radiation means different things to different people and whilst you didn't like my attitude, your and David Dunlop's attitude towards it was offensive to some on here who do have said tumours from RF radiation AND they did not serve in the RN or RNZN , nor did they attend any nuclear tests. Hence I would suggest that you should be aware of all the circumstances before launching, because the Moderators, Defence Professionals, and some long term members here will know stuff about people that isn't widely known that others, and especially newbies like yourself, don't.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry - having one of those days !

Typed up a post for the Australian navy here, so deleted the content & reposted there.

sorry again - happy for admins to delete this post...
 

Albedo

Member

As an addendum to earlier discussions on Japan pausing the SPY-7 Aegis Ashore project earlier this month, they have now officially cancelled the program. Japan previously signed a 180 billion yen contract of which only 12.5 billion yen has been paid and they are now trying to renegotiate. Not sure how much of that budget is SPY-7 and Aegis combat system related, but doubtless the SPY-7/Aegis program is going to see less revenue than Lockheed Martin had planned. The US continues to field the LRDR in Alaska and this leaves Spain and Canada as the remaining customers of the integrated SPY-7/Aegis system.
 

shadow99

New Member
While old news on Halifax upgrades, the RCN has put up "Halifax Class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension Project Part 2" on youtube a few weeks ago in 1080p. Some great video and excellent upgrades all around, especially for those in MCR.

With technology changing so fast (hypersonic misiles coming down the pipeline) and these ships expected to last 40+ years it would seem some of the weapon systems (such as the Harpoon and Phalanx systems). will be rather long in the tooth and will need to be replaced sooner than later.

 

76mmGuns

Member
While old news on Halifax upgrades, the RCN has put up "Halifax Class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension Project Part 2" on youtube a few weeks ago in 1080p. Some great video and excellent upgrades all around, especially for those in MCR.

With technology changing so fast (hypersonic misiles coming down the pipeline) and these ships expected to last 40+ years it would seem some of the weapon systems (such as the Harpoon and Phalanx systems). will be rather long in the tooth and will need to be replaced sooner than later.

What's available now to replace Phalanx?

Any articles on the effectiveness of Italy's Strales/76mm gun system? At least it's further out.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What's available now to replace Phalanx?

Any articles on the effectiveness of Italy's Strales/76mm gun system? At least it's further out.
Phalanx would be alright if they increased the calibre of the gun to 30 mm. That just gives it that extra range and hitting power. 20 mm is to small now and has been for a long time. The US were very slow to adopt it in their aircraft and only with the F-35 have they increased the calibre to 25 mm whilst the Europeans and Russians went to 30 mm and the Europeans lately to 27 mm. It's great having a weapon that can spit out thousands of rounds a minute, but it's not much use if the rounds don't have the range or hitting power.
 

Barnold

New Member
Something of interest for those following development of the CSC - issue 93 of the Maritime Engineering Journal features the introductory article of a series discussing the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The Canadian Surface Combatant – Starting a New Conversation on Canada’s Major Warship Replacement Project (Begins on page 21)

I don't think there's any new information in the introduction, but author Cdr Andrew Sargeant, (acting Deputy Project Manager (Transition), and Senior Supportability Engineering Manager for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project), provides further confirmation of what is generally known about the combat system: "The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles."
 

Mattshel

Member
Something of interest for those following development of the CSC - issue 93 of the Maritime Engineering Journal features the introductory article of a series discussing the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The Canadian Surface Combatant – Starting a New Conversation on Canada’s Major Warship Replacement Project (Begins on page 21)

I don't think there's any new information in the introduction, but author Cdr Andrew Sargeant, (acting Deputy Project Manager (Transition), and Senior Supportability Engineering Manager for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project), provides further confirmation of what is generally known about the combat system: "The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles."
I think one important piece of information that is included in that publication is the number of VLS cells, I do not think that has been mentioned in writing elsewhere before as a requirement. The verbiage about handling Tomahawk missiles is new as well, it is something many have assumed, however just because the ship can handle them it does not mean they will be procured.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I think one important piece of information that is included in that publication is the number of VLS cells, I do not think that has been mentioned in writing elsewhere before as a requirement. The verbiage about handling Tomahawk missiles is new as well, it is something many have assumed, however just because the ship can handle them it does not mean they will be procured.
True regarding the potential purchase of Tomahawk. One thing the announcement did indicate though, is the size of the VLS cells since it can take Tomahawk. This leaves the potential open for Canada to purchase a missile like LRASM at a later date. Or for that matter, any other sort of VLS missile which can fit in the space a Tomahawk missile would require.
 

76mmGuns

Member
Something of interest for those following development of the CSC - issue 93 of the Maritime Engineering Journal features the introductory article of a series discussing the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The Canadian Surface Combatant – Starting a New Conversation on Canada’s Major Warship Replacement Project (Begins on page 21)

I don't think there's any new information in the introduction, but author Cdr Andrew Sargeant, (acting Deputy Project Manager (Transition), and Senior Supportability Engineering Manager for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project), provides further confirmation of what is generally known about the combat system: "The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles."
Interesting read. I notice that of the three Type 26 building nations, Australia continues to not state how many VLS cells will be placed. This magazine says Canada's will have 32.

It also mentions advantages of having 3 nations building it. I'll probably not be alive to see all 32 built and in action, mores the pity. I think the ASW exercises involving, say, 4-5 from each nation , would be very exciting. Pure sub hunting, protecting on of the UK's carrier groups. Exciting stuff, though very 2035-40
 

Albedo

Member
While old news on Halifax upgrades, the RCN has put up "Halifax Class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension Project Part 2" on youtube a few weeks ago in 1080p. Some great video and excellent upgrades all around, especially for those in MCR.

With technology changing so fast (hypersonic misiles coming down the pipeline) and these ships expected to last 40+ years it would seem some of the weapon systems (such as the Harpoon and Phalanx systems). will be rather long in the tooth and will need to be replaced sooner than later.

What's available now to replace Phalanx?
Presumably now that the 57mm Bofors was upgraded to Mk 3 with the addition of 3P ammo the Halifax-class will increasingly rely on it to provide close-in defence against missile threats with better range than the Phalanx. Potential upgrade paths include the BAE ORKA ammo which is a guided version of the 3P ammo for increased accuracy although I believe it has reduced range and the US is funding development of MAD-FIRES as a 57mm round specifically against anti-ship cruise missiles.

A number of additional post-HCM/FELEX upgrades are also ongoing to improve missile protection including upgrading to active homing ESSM Block II to avoid being limited by the two CEROS 200 fire control radars to better deal with saturation attacks. I believe the CEROS 200 is also used for gun control, so ESSM Block II freeing up the CEROS 200 should also improve the effectiveness of the 57 mm gun. A third MASS decoy launcher is being added per ship to improve softkill coverage. The 2D Sea Giraffe radar which was already upgraded in HCM/FELEX is also undergoing another upgrade to a 3D antenna to provide enhanced short/medium range air/surface detection to complement the medium/long-range 3D SMART-S radar.

The Halifax-class is also getting 4 Mini-Typhoons to supplement Phalanx's close-in protection against fast attack boats and UAVs.

Something of interest for those following development of the CSC - issue 93 of the Maritime Engineering Journal features the introductory article of a series discussing the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The Canadian Surface Combatant – Starting a New Conversation on Canada’s Major Warship Replacement Project (Begins on page 21)

I don't think there's any new information in the introduction, but author Cdr Andrew Sargeant, (acting Deputy Project Manager (Transition), and Senior Supportability Engineering Manager for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project), provides further confirmation of what is generally known about the combat system: "The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles."
That's great finally confirming in one place what people have been piecing together from various industry statements and ship models. Although the integration between Aegis and CMS 330 has long been talked about and while it no doubt enables many new capabilities and avoids having to reinvent the wheel to do so, from a more philosophical perspective, it's interesting that currently one of CMS 330's main selling points is that it's ITAR-free, but now future development seems tied to Aegis.

True regarding the potential purchase of Tomahawk. One thing the announcement did indicate though, is the size of the VLS cells since it can take Tomahawk. This leaves the potential open for Canada to purchase a missile like LRASM at a later date. Or for that matter, any other sort of VLS missile which can fit in the space a Tomahawk missile would require.
Confirmation of strike-length Mk 41 does fit with the job postings found before involving integration of the strike-length SM-6 with Aegis/SPY-7/CMS 330.

Interesting read. I notice that of the three Type 26 building nations, Australia continues to not state how many VLS cells will be placed. This magazine says Canada's will have 32.
If the Hunter-class and CSC both end up having 32 Mk 41 VLS but in different organizations (4 x 8-cell modules side-by-side with the long sides in bow-stern orientation for the Hunter vs long sides aligned port-starboard with 1 x 8-cell module forward and 3 x 8-cell modules behind in the CSC) hopefully there will eventually be an explanation for the difference in design.
 

Albedo

Member
In the latest edition of Canadian Naval Review (Volume 16, Number 1 (2020)), on page 39, the author of an article on the NSS (David Perry) states that the Requirements Reconciliation phase for CSC was completed in 2019. I for one would very much like to see how well those "requirements" match up to what we think we know, through much detective work by various members on this RCN thread. I will attempt to summarize what I think it will look like below.
  • Volume Search Radar: SPY-7 (V1), S-band (supplied by LM)
  • Illuminator: Unknown. (Supplied by MDA. Not known if this is a bespoke or existing design.)
  • 32 x Mk41 strike-length VLS (ESSM, SM-x)
  • Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (supplied by Magellan/TKMS)
  • 6 x ExLS VLS (SeaCeptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
  • Main gun: 1 x 5 inch Mk 45
  • Secondary guns: 2 x 30mm DSM 30 (Bushmaster 30mm) - presumed. (Could be the Mk38 25mm, for compatibility and supply chain reasons with the AOPVs)
  • CEC
  • CMS: CMS330/Aegis
  • Bow sonar: Presumably the Ultra 2150
  • Towed-array: Unknown.
  • Speed: Reputed the SOR required the capability to keep pace with a US CBG, which is widely thought to be around 30 knots. Given the current Halifax class can meet this performance standard, it seems likely that the RCN would like to maintain the capability.
  • Crew complement: unknown

If I've missed anything, please chime in.
Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems (Ultra) has produced more than two million sonobuoys in a variety of models for military users worldwide. The company also develops and manufactures military-grade towed array sonars. Ultra’s ASW (anti-submarine warfare) sonar suite will be the foundation of systems installed in the CSC ships. This includes both the S2150C Hull Mounted Sonar and the TLFAS dual-tow sonar, as well as sonar and sonobuoy processing capabilities.

“The S2150C provides an active dual band, low-to-medium, multi-frequency capability, wideband passive detection, torpedo detection, underwater communications and high-fidelity mine and object avoidance capabilities,” said Bernard Mills, President of Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems. “The TLFAS Variable Depth Sonar capability is a derivative of the Low Frequency Active Passive Sonar (LFAPS) system delivered to the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) for the M-Class frigates under the Multistatic Active/Passive Sonar (MAPS) program, enhanced to meet Canada’s specific operational performance requirements.”
I was catching up on Canadian Defence Review articles and noticed a little more detail on the sonars for the CSC were provided by Ultra earlier this year. The hull mounted sonar will be an Ultra S2150C. I believe Britain's Type 26 and Australia's Hunter-class are reported to use the Ultra S2150 and the "C" possibly refers to a custom Canadian version.

Similarly, the towed array will be a new, custom dual-tow TLFAS sonar building on the Low Frequency Active Passive Sonar (LFAPS) system Ultra provided for the RNLN M-class frigates. Interestingly, Ultra is already developing a new in-line single-tow active-passive sonar, possibly based on the system provided for the Hobart-class, as part of the Underwater Warfare Suite Upgrade for the Halifax-class which will IOC 2022 so apparently this new sonar won't be reused on the CSC unlike Britain moving the Thales Sonar 2087 from the Type 23 to the Type 26. Hopefully this means the CSC's new dual-tow sonar is quite a bit better than the Halifax-class's new single-tow sonar to make the cost and effort of simultaneously developing two different towed sonar systems for the RCN worthwhile. And with the Type 26, Hunter-class, and CSC all being designed as ASW specialists and based on the same hull, it'll be very interesting to see who comes out on top in joint ASW exercises between the Type 26 combination of Ultra S2150 hull mounted sonar/Thales S2087 towed sonar/Merlin HM2, the Hunter-class combination of Ultra S2150 hull mounted sonar/Thales S2087 towed sonar/MH-60R, and the CSC combination of Ultra S2150C hull mounted sonar/Ultra TLFAS towed sonar/CH-148. I'd like to think all the custom sonar work being done for the CSC and the long CH-148 saga will yield a positive advantage.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Some more information about Admiral Norman’s foiled attempts at getting documents for his defence (case now dropped). Hopefully the officers involved will be found, charged and if convicted, dealt with. The Liberal political operatives will likely escape any consequences but the emerging “WE charity scandal” may finally end junior.
 

shadow99

New Member
No surprise for sure, but with HMCS Windsor being the first to go in 2033 that doesn't leave much time to get our act together.

I'm not going to hold my breath that things will change for the better any time soon. Buffoonery runs strong and is so deeply rooted in Canada for generations from all political parties and unfortunately has become the norm, but at tremendous cost to tax payers and Military alike.

It will take strong leadership for any real changes to take place and I don't see that happening any time soon or the near future.

On a positive note, I came across this company Cellula Roboitics that Canada is involved with and development looks positive for the Solaris-LR AUV Solus-LR — Cellula Robotics a base range of 2000 km. month long endurance, port to port missions in the Arctic looks impressive for surveillance and ASM with a towed array would be well suited for the future.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Cellula seems to have an interesting product. It would be nice to hope the RCN is taking a look at it just in case we get a new government that actually wants to invest in security for the Arctic.
 

Albedo

Member
No surprise for sure, but with HMCS Windsor being the first to go in 2033 that doesn't leave much time to get our act together.

I'm not going to hold my breath that things will change for the better any time soon. Buffoonery runs strong and is so deeply rooted in Canada for generations from all political parties and unfortunately has become the norm, but at tremendous cost to tax payers and Military alike.

It will take strong leadership for any real changes to take place and I don't see that happening any time soon or the near future.
This calls for naval forces that are designed and structured to operate in some of the most extreme ocean conditions. Further, since a large part of Canada’s prosperity relies on the maintenance of free and open access to international waters for trade and commerce, Canada requires a Navy that is organized and sized to project power responsively and effectively far from Canada’s shores.

This Blue Water Navy requires a balanced mix of platforms, including submarines, surface combatants, support ships and patrol vessels, in sufficient quantities to meet our domestic and international needs.
I'll just have to naively hope that when they wrote in the SSE that the navy "requires" submarines they actually meant it enough to start planning soon on a replacement.

Cellula seems to have an interesting product. It would be nice to hope the RCN is taking a look at it just in case we get a new government that actually wants to invest in security for the Arctic.
Cellula Robotics Ltd. is pleased to announce the approval to proceed with phase 3 of a contract by Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of the Department of National Defence’s (DND) science and technology organization, Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), under the All Domain Situational Awareness (ADSA) Science & Technology (S&T) Program. Under Phase 3, Cellula will develop and build a long range Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV). The UUV will incorporate a fuel cell power pack and suction anchor. Known as Solus-LR, the UUV will have a target range of 2000 km and is designed to stay submerged for multi-month missions.
Well the government is funding the development of Solus-LR based on DND requirements so I agree that they should buy some if the product is successful. The new sonars Ultra is building for the Halifax-class and CSC incorporate DRDC research/DRDC-funded research so there is some history of Canada funding technology research and following through with purchases of the end product in the underwater space.
 
Top