Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Note the mention specifically of Canada as a potential for these boats. The plot gets thicker!
I am just not buying the Swedish marketing spiel — the Germans were able to win over Singapore as a submarine customer, as a total solution, including weapons for the Type 218SG, and what was offered to DSTA was technically superior — with a more compact installed power solution and a more space efficient AIP system.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Article in Forbes on A26: The Advanced Thinking Behind Sweden’s New A-26 Submarine

Note the mention specifically of Canada as a potential for these boats. The plot gets thicker!
I do like the UUV concept and believe that in the future it could be further developed to not only act as ears and decoy but also as a weapon delivery platform. If this could be finessed it negates the submarines vulnerability, losing stealth at weapon release.
If a capability was developed whereby the UUV could return to the boat and rearm along with a targeting system the result would change ASW for good and further enhance the advantages already enjoyed by those underwater predators.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I do like the UUV concept and believe that in the future it could be further developed to not only act as ears and decoy but also as a weapon delivery platform. If this could be finessed it negates the submarines vulnerability, losing stealth at weapon release.
If a capability was developed whereby the UUV could return to the boat and rearm along with a targeting system the result would change ASW for good and further enhance the advantages already enjoyed by those underwater predators.
Agree, submarine technology advances will be just as significant as technology now being planned for outer space.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
If a capability was developed whereby the UUV could return to the boat and rearm along with a targeting system the result would change ASW for good and further enhance the advantages already enjoyed by those underwater predators.
1. Agreed. Due to its long range, Germany’s SATCOM equipped DM2A4 Seehecht (instead of fibre optic command wire) is almost an UUV Instead of a torpedo. The Italian Navy operates CABI Cattaneo swimmer delivery vehicles or UUVs that docks with their Type 212As — I see big efforts by the Germans and Italians to leap frog other UUV suppliers in this area.

2. In the past, the Germans were less willing to customise than Sweden but the Type 218SG demonstrated German flexibility to bend or meet Singapore requirements; especially since Singapore has Swedish trained submarine crews conversant with their littoral tactics.

3. As I mentioned earlier, Singapore Navy has multiple testbed UUVs in the water, during our naval exercises in the South China Sea and we know that often multiple foreign submarines are tracking our ships and each other during these times — with defence science working hard on collision avoidance logic for our UUVs.

(a) To differentiate in a crowded market, we have started calling them as AUVs, and the MERCURY AUV is most often used for harbour security.​
(b) The presence of submarines with UUVs and AUVs are just risky and that has prompted the creation of provide a dedicated portal for submarine safety information (SSIP). Colonel David Foo, Commanding Officer of the Submarine Squadron said, “The portal will help submarines navigate amid unmanned underwater vehicles and warship exercises out at sea.”​

4. AUV or UUV use, littoral tactics and combat swimmer delivery is not unique to Sweden’s submarines. The Americans and Italians have very advanced UUVs and warm water combat swimmer tactics, along with specialised tools for swimmer delivery. STIDD Systems opened its Submersible Boat Training and Evaluation Facility in 2003 with Florida being an ideal location for aquatic and professional environment in which to evaluate its swimmer delivery products that are essentially UUVs. Once encrypted UUV and submarine comms is perfected, its use should rise exponentially.

5. Singapore’s Swedish built boats are able to fire Italian made WASS Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes — in DSTA’s mix and match efforts to increase capability in small increments.
6. The article looks like an advert for the A26. Fairly one-sided, with info extracted from my earlier video link to the Swedish presentation.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
1. Agreed. Due to its long range, Germany’s SATCOM equipped DM2A4 Seehecht (instead of fibre optic command wire) is almost an UUV Instead of a torpedo. The Italian Navy operates CABI Cattaneo swimmer delivery vehicles or UUVs that docks with their Type 212As — I see big efforts by the Germans and Italians to leap frog other UUV suppliers in this area.

4. AUV or UUV use, littoral tactics and combat swimmer delivery is not unique to Sweden’s submarines. The Americans and Italians have very advanced UUVs and warm water combat swimmer tactics, along with specialised tools for swimmer delivery.
The Italians have a long & proud history in this area. For example, they sank an Austro-Hungarian battleship in harbour at Pula in 1918, & two Royal Navy battleships in harbour at Alexandria (but in shallow water, so they were refloated & repaired - but out of action for about a year) in 1941. Of current & building MMI ships, three FREMMs & an Audace-class destroyer are named after swimmers.
 

Calculus

Active Member
An interesting update on the AOPS (AOPV) program: Major milestones for future HMCS Margaret Brooke with first fuel and radar installation

I have heard that hull number 3 (HMCS Max Bernays) is due to be moved out of the assembly hall shortly, which will free up the space inside to cut the first steel for 5. They seem to be building some good momentum, which they will need to maintain if they still plan to start construction on CSC 1 by 2023.
 

Albedo

Member
Latest LM advert on CSC: Seven Things You Should Know About Canadian Surface Combatant

Doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know before, but still kind of interesting, especially the stuff about the supplier base.
Going by admittedly casual observation it seems like there is more pushback in Australia by the press and government to maximize Australian content in the Hunter class than there is in Canada for the CSC. I wonder if that's because there's already a lot of Canadian content in the CSC so it's not an issue, we trust the CSC consortium to add Canadian content so don't push or there's just not strong enough awareness of the issue?

The LM article does make an explicit marketing claim that the ship is designed to have "the world’s best acoustic performance" which is important context amidst the Parliamentary Budget Office review and renewed chatter for the FREMM or even Type 31 as an alternative to the Type 26.

As well, hopefully LM eventually provides more details on what they mean by "the ship will have the world’s most advanced radar system." Presumably they can't mean in absolute power/range compared to say the much larger SPY-6(V)1 in Flight III Arleigh Burkes so it'll have to something more nuanced like based on some measure of discrimination ability or some efficiency measure like superior performance relative other radars of similar size/weight.


The article does include what seems like the highest resolution image of this computer model to date although lower resolution images of this model have been shown before. It's concerning that this new article is still using a model showing only 24 Mk41 VLS instead of the 32 Mk41 we were expecting. I really hope the number hasn't been cut down.

The picture also has the resolution to see what looks like un-stabilized crew-served 0.50 cal HMGs on the bridge wings which is an unusual choice given the Halifax-class is currently having their HMGs replaced by stabilized Naval Remote Weapon Stations (Mini-Typhoons) on the bridge wings and quarterdeck. The CSC doesn't seem to have HMGs on the quarterdeck although I suppose what seem like DS30M Mk2 on either side of the hanger would handle fast attack craft aft. It's interesting the DS30M Mk2 on the CSC seem to use on-mount EO/IR which presumably wouldn't have the performance of the aft funnel mounted Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCEO in the Type 26.


I also still find it strange that the CSC mounts it's larger S-band SPY-7 on top of it's smaller X-band radar. It seems like warships normally have their smaller X-band radar on top to take advantage of the better resolution of the X-band and the height to maximize horizon search for sea-skimming missiles. The earliest LM/BAE CSC models had the X-band radar on top, but was swapped to the SPY-7 on top in later model. I wonder why? It's doubtful there's something special with the SPY-7 that avoids the benefits of a top-mounted X-band radar since the Spanish F110 still mounts a rectangular multifunction X-band Indra Prisma 25X radar above it's SPY-7. Unless the CSC's X-band radar will be designed purely as an illuminator for missiles rather than be multifunction or multi-mode which seems inefficient since both ESSM and SM-2 are incorporating active homing modes, reducing the need for a dedicated illuminator, and presumably even an illuminator should be mounted as high as possible to maximize range. The F110 mounts a dedicated X-band AN/SPG-62 illuminator even higher than its X-band multifunction radar. Placing the X-band radar above the SPY-7 would also give the option to fit a larger variant of the SPY-7 utilizing the wider mast base. Notably the CSC's SPY-7 seems to be about the height of the hatch on the forward face of its mast base while the F110's SPY-7 seems to be taller than the hatch at its mast base so the F110's SPY-7 seems to be larger assuming the hatches are a similar size.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
As well, hopefully LM eventually provides more details on what they mean by "the ship will have the world’s most advanced radar system." Presumably they can't mean in absolute power/range compared to say the much larger SPY-6(V)1 in Flight III Arleigh Burkes so it'll have to something more nuanced like based on some measure of discrimination ability or some efficiency measure like superior performance relative other radars of similar size/weight.
Advanced has nothing to do with size or power. A Leopard 2A7 is much more advanced than a Maus, but a third of the size. My wife's Toyota Yaris is far more advanced than a 1920s Bentley 6 1/2 litre, but much smaller, lighter & with less engine power. Far more power per unit of engine capacity or engine weight, though, & vastly more reliable.
 

KiwiRob

Active Member
Advanced has nothing to do with size or power. A Leopard 2A7 is much more advanced than a Maus, but a third of the size. My wife's Toyota Yaris is far more advanced than a 1920s Bentley 6 1/2 litre, but much smaller, lighter & with less engine power. Far more power per unit of engine capacity or engine weight, though, & vastly more reliable.
But significantly cheaper and will have a much shorter lifespan than the Bentley.
 

Calculus

Active Member
Latest info sheet on the JSS (courtesy RCN): https://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/jss_factsheet_8x11_eng.pdf

Additional information: Max speed greater than 20 knots, range (at 15 knots) 10,800 nm.

A bit more background:
 
Last edited:
Top