Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Very interesting infographic on CSC about half way down the page at this link: Discover the Dream Job - Designing Canada's Most Capable Combat Ship

Seems to suggest the primary area air defence missile will be SM2-Block 3B. The CIAD missile is not indicated in the graphic, for some reason, though we already know this to be SeaCeptor from previous announcements. And the support for ESSM, in both its guises (blk 1 and blk2) is hardly surprising either.

Still no information on the X-band illuminator radar.
 
Last edited:

Albedo

Member
Very interesting infographic on CSC about half way down the page at this link: Discover the Dream Job - Designing Canada's Most Capable Combat Ship

Seems to suggest the primary area air defence missile will be SM2-Block 3B. The CIAD missile is not indicated in the graphic, for some reason, though we already know this to be SeaCeptor from previous announcements. And the support for ESSM, in both its guises (blk 1 and blk2) is hardly surprising either.

Still no information on the X-band illuminator radar.
There is a small bit of new information about the X-Band illuminator since the slide explicitly confirms it's an AESA radar whereas I believe the previous best description was just "solid-state".


Other AESA radars capable of X-band illumination namely APAR, CEAMOUNT, and SPY-3 are described as using Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) and for SM-2 it seems like only the SM-2 Block IIIA has been modified to use ICWI. The SM-2 Block IIIB was supposed to be modified for ICWI for the DDG-1000 class but that project was cancelled and the SM-2 Block IIIA was substituted.


The most recent SM-2 purchase by an APAR user was 2 years ago by Denmark and it was still for SM-2 Block IIIA. Has SM-2 Block IIIB been modified for ICWI recently? If it hasn't, this suggests the CSC X-band AESA illuminator is using Continuous Wave Illumination. Are ICWI AESA radars like APAR, CEAMOUNT or SPY-3 also capable of Continuous Wave Illumination or is the CSC X-band AESA illuminator doing something unique (which could mean it really is a new design)?
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I would love to see the drawings for the machinery exhaust runs.
Machinery a long way aft, funnels a long way forward, otherwise it seems a nice concept.
That was a very good observation, and when I read your post I started to look a little closer at the drawing. I think the diesels themselves are right in line with the exhaust stack. They appear to be immediately below the "canteen" in the drawing. If that is the case, the exhaust runs would be straight up.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
There is a small bit of new information about the X-Band illuminator since the slide explicitly confirms it's an AESA radar whereas I believe the previous best description was just "solid-state".


Other AESA radars capable of X-band illumination namely APAR, CEAMOUNT, and SPY-3 are described as using Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) and for SM-2 it seems like only the SM-2 Block IIIA has been modified to use ICWI. The SM-2 Block IIIB was supposed to be modified for ICWI for the DDG-1000 class but that project was cancelled and the SM-2 Block IIIA was substituted.


The most recent SM-2 purchase by an APAR user was 2 years ago by Denmark and it was still for SM-2 Block IIIA. Has SM-2 Block IIIB been modified for ICWI recently? If it hasn't, this suggests the CSC X-band AESA illuminator is using Continuous Wave Illumination. Are ICWI AESA radars like APAR, CEAMOUNT or SPY-3 also capable of Continuous Wave Illumination or is the CSC X-band AESA illuminator doing something unique (which could mean it really is a new design)?
Many pages ago in this thread I wondered if CEAMOUNT might not be the candidate illuminator radar for CSC. That was mostly because of its shape (square) which seems to be the shape of the illuminator shown on the CSC drawings. However, in Australian use they always seem to be in a different orientation (rotated 45 degrees). So I had eliminated it as a possibility, but simply based on the CSC concept drawings. Not on any specific knowledge of how CEAMOUNT works. Presumably it needs to be oriented in the way it is in Australian service. So, assuming the CSC drawing is accurate, the illuminator appears to be a perfect square, on axis, which would seem to eliminate APAR2, as well as the SPY 3 panel, which, on Zumwalt anyway, appears to be rectangular, as well as too large. We know MDA is responsible for this radar, so it may be a bespoke design. Hope we find out soon. This, and the number of Mk41 cells, are the only items that so far have not been confirmed.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Many pages ago in this thread I wondered if CEAMOUNT might not be the candidate illuminator radar for CSC. That was mostly because of its shape (square) which seems to be the shape of the illuminator shown on the CSC drawings. However, in Australian use they always seem to be in a different orientation (rotated 45 degrees). So I had eliminated it as a possibility, but simply based on the CSC concept drawings. Not on any specific knowledge of how CEAMOUNT works. Presumably it needs to be oriented in the way it is in Australian service. So, assuming the CSC drawing is accurate, the illuminator appears to be a perfect square, on axis, which would seem to eliminate APAR2, as well as the SPY 3 panel, which, on Zumwalt anyway, appears to be rectangular, as well as too large. We know MDA is responsible for this radar, so it may be a bespoke design. Hope we find out soon. This, and the number of Mk41 cells, are the only items that so far have not been confirmed.
I thought that the RCN was going with the SPY-7?
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Many pages ago in this thread I wondered if CEAMOUNT might not be the candidate illuminator radar for CSC. That was mostly because of its shape (square) which seems to be the shape of the illuminator shown on the CSC drawings. However, in Australian use they always seem to be in a different orientation (rotated 45 degrees). So I had eliminated it as a possibility, but simply based on the CSC concept drawings. Not on any specific knowledge of how CEAMOUNT works. Presumably it needs to be oriented in the way it is in Australian service.
I'm no expert in this, but if you look at the ASMD mast on the ANZAC class I believe the square panels rotated by 45° are CEAFAR and the small rectangular panels vertically aligned are CEAMOUNT. On top is the rotating SPS-49

On the new AMCAP mast there are three rows of panels. Highest and largest are CEAFAR-L , next down are CEAFAR panels. Both are diagonally aligned.

Bottom row and smallest are the panels for CEAMOUNT. Rectangular
.

Hope this helps and doesn't confound.

oldsig
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I'm no expert in this, but if you look at the ASMD mast on the ANZAC class I believe the square panels rotated by 45° are CEAFAR and the small rectangular panels vertically aligned are CEAMOUNT. On top is the rotating SPS-49

On the new AMCAP mast there are three rows of panels. Highest and largest are CEAFAR-L , next down are CEAFAR panels. Both are diagonally aligned.

Bottom row and smallest are the panels for CEAMOUNT. Rectangular.

Hope this helps and doesn't confound.

oldsig
Yes indeed it does. I've never noticed the smaller rectangular panels before - they were overwhelmed by the larger radar panels, and difficult to see on the various Hunter models. Easier to see on the ANZAC masts. Thanks for that information. However, again, it would seem the shape rules it out for CSC.

Photo of Hunter (below). Source: PACIFIC 2019: SEA 5000 Hunter-class frigates to benefit from Aegis CMS - Naval News

1602164560644.png


Photo of upgraded ANZAC mast below. Source: CEA Technologies - Solutions With Commitment

1602166007634.png
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Just for clarity, that is now the OLD mast (ASMD) The new one is larger to fit the upper row of panels as well.

oldsig
Thank you sir. I must confess to not having much knowledge of the CEA portfolio. It would be interesting to contrast the capabilities of CEAFAR with some of the more known radars like the SPY series, and perhaps with some of the European systems.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
1602230370792.png

Largest diamond panel is CEAFAR-l
Middle diamond panel is CEAFAR
at the lowest point still facing skyward, but on their own narrow surface, are small rectangular panels - CEAMOUNT

I wouldn't read too much into the orientation of the panels. They can be and have previously been mounted in different ways. They can even be mounted on movable agile directors.

What the RAN wants doesn't have to be enforced on other customers. Many won't want the high power, many probably won't want a majority of the processing done in mast, its a very flexible scalable system.
1602231375439.png
 

Albedo

Member

In regards to whether the CSC's X-band AESA illuminator could be based on the SPY-3 radar, it looks like that option is even less likely since the SPY-3 is going to become even more of a technological dead-end than it is right now with the USN looking to replace the SPY-3 in the Zumwalt-class with another radar. The USN is considering multiple radar alternatives and it would be a boon for the Canadian and Spanish Navies if the USN adopts a SPY-7 variant although a SPY-6 variant seems the most obvious choice.
 

Barnold

New Member
Though it's not explicitly confirmed in the article, it suggests that there won't be a separate CSC variant for Anti-Air Warfare:

"The design and capability fit aims to deliver a highly versatile ship that is multi-role in nature, and that affords the greatest range of capability. This outcome translates directly into agility and responsiveness for the RCN, including re-rolling [sic] a deployed ship from one mission to another, without returning to port."

"It is being designed from the keel up to be multi-purpose in its capabilities, affording Canada the ability to deploy it across a broad spectrum of mission sets, and agility to adapt to a new mission, in hours not days or weeks."

[Edited for Clarification]
 
Last edited:

evil.totoro

New Member
Not explicitly stated, but the article also suggests that there won't be a separate CSC variant for Anti-Air Warfare:"
Not explicitly stated? It’s a bullet point under what the ships capability suite includes.
  • The USN Cooperative Engagement Capability sensor netting system
 

Barnold

New Member
My apologies, I meant to quote Calculus in reference to the article as a whole, not the point on CEC. Re-reading it, I can see that it's unclear, but I meant that, though it isn't explicitly stated, the article suggests that there won't be a separate CSC variant for Anti-Air Warfare.
 
Top