Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
This would suggest that all the ships will be the same and have the same number of VSL cells. So the question is will it be 24 or 32 cells?
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
evil.totoro
New Member
My apologies as well, after reading your original post, I can understand what you meant and was thrown off by the bolded part of the quote.
Navy recognition have the attached picture showing the differences between the three versions which it looks like the Canadian version has 32 cells. Not sure if this is a recent picture from Euronaval 2020.
There is also a small summary of the differences in the November/December version of EDR Online which states 32 VLS for Canadian version. Again not sure what their source is of this as haven't seen anything official confirming the number of VLS cells.
Also sorry if I have not formatted correctly or added links properly as first time actually posting.
There is also a small summary of the differences in the November/December version of EDR Online which states 32 VLS for Canadian version. Again not sure what their source is of this as haven't seen anything official confirming the number of VLS cells.
Also sorry if I have not formatted correctly or added links properly as first time actually posting.
Attachments
Good find, but it actually looks like a 3x8cell displayed on the CSC - so only 24 cells but in a different arrangement than the RN model that has shown the 2x12 configuration for some time now. The Hunter has the 4x8 cell shown.
Would be a shame to build such a large, modern ship only to have a 24 cell MK 41.
I'm not sure if people noticed the pdf, but the diagram in the pdf version of the article also provides additional details. The article mentions torpedoes, but the diagram clarifies that the CSC will in fact have torpedo tubes as opposed to the base RN Type 26 which omits them. It's not clear though whether twin tubes means a total of 2 tubes per ship or 2 per side for a total of 4.
Whereas the article text generically describes the illuminator radar as solid-state, the diagram confirms it is AESA.
The diagram also indicates Long Range Precision Naval Fires Support is provided by the Mk41 VLS suggesting the RCN will actually adopt Tomahawk cruise missiles. Long range land strike is a more costly and offensive-minded capability than we're used to from Canadian defence policy.
Given ASW is still supposed to be CSC's major focus it's surprising there has yet to be any mention to date of VL-ASROC.
It's interesting that other than job postings to integrate SM-6 with CMS330 and SPY-7 for the CSC, official Lockheed Martin and Canadian government announcements have yet to confirm SM-6. That's probably for the best since they might as well prepare for SM-6 support, but wait for the new much larger SM-6 Block IB variant to finish development before buying SM-6. No sense in buying current SM-6 variants then having to pay to upgrade them soon after. It would probably be more cost effective to wait for the future active homing SM-2MR Block IIIC as well rather than buying the current SM-2MR Block IIIB as confirmed by Lockheed Martin, but I suppose they want to have a long range air defence missile available on commissioning rather than waiting.
This announcement also confirms the secondary guns are 30mm cannons which pictures and models have suggested are using MSI DS30M mounts with integrated EO/IR. I still think it would be better to use the Rafael Typhoon Mk-30c/BAE 30mm MGS mount to maximize commonality with the 25 mm Typhoon/Mk38 in the Harry DeWolf-class. Whereas the US FFG(X) program had a long list of government furnished or government specified equipment to maximize commonality with existing US equipment, the CSC process seems to give the design consortium a lot of freedom to select equipment as long as it meets the base performance/functional requirements. I suppose this helps keep the CSC build cost down, but seems to risk leaving the RCN with increased training and maintenance costs. Another example is the decoys/decoy launchers where the CSC models seem to consistently show BAE Mk36 SRBOC or similar fixed decoy launchers while an ongoing program is adding an additional Rheinmetall MASS trainable decoy launcher to the Halifax-class and models of the new Protecteur-class suggest it will be using MASS as well. It doesn't seem sensible for the CSC and Protecteur-class, which have overlapping lifespans, to use different decoys and decoy launchers, but that seems like what could happen since they have different project management offices and different design consortia.
It's also interesting that the CSC only has 1 Multi-Role Boat (MRB) unless the Mission Bay is used whereas the Halifax-class is currently undergoing an upgrade to provide 2 new MRBs per ship and the Harry DeWolf-class also carries 2 MRBs (as well as 2 larger boats).
It's strange that the digital/graphics models of the CSC pretty consistently show 24-cell Mk41 whereas the physical models in trade shows show 32-cell Mk41. With Euronaval 2020 being all digital I'm guessing a physical model hasn't been built so that we can't compare.
With an explicit goal for the CSC design to allow "re-rolling a deployed ship from one mission to another, without returning to port" that would be a lot easier to accomplish with 32-cells so that you can always carry a wide range of missiles.
Last edited:
With full credit to @Barnold in post 2369, the number was confirmed to be 32 in this document (see page 20, in the paragraph titled "CSC Combat System"): https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/mej/40-020-maritimejournal93-en.pdf#page=21
Also confirmed is all 32 will be Strike Length.
Picture of HMCS Harry DeWolf recovering her landing craft using her 20 tonne crane (courtesy of the RCN Twitter feed
.)
Last edited:
Spain's version of the SPY-7 radar has been designated SPY-7(v)2: Euronaval Online 2020: Lockheed Martin to equip new Spanish Navy F110 with AN/SPY-7(V)2 solid state S-band radar
Wonder what the designation for the CSC's version will be?
Wonder what the designation for the CSC's version will be?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I just hope the CSC survives the COVID budget axe. If it does, SPY-7 can be called version “lucky”.
It looks like it would be a difficult operation in a seaway.
The cover letter of the government's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request notes that while other navies have different classes or variants to address different mission sets, it explicitly confirms the CSC is "a single, multi-purpose, warship to fulfill the Navy's capability requirements within a single design." So the current plan as we've gathered from different official announcements to date is for 15 CSC all with SPY-7, X-band AESA illuminator, Aegis, CEC, CMS330, RAVEN ECM, 32 x cell Mk41 VLS, SM-2MR Block IIIB, ESSM Block I and II, Long Range Precision Naval Fires missiles (presumably Tomahawk), 6 x cell ExLS with CAMM, 8 x cell boxed anti-ship missiles (presumably NSM), 5" Mk45 gun, 2 x 30 mm secondary guns, Ultra S2150C hull-mounted sonar, Ultra TLFAS dual-tow active passive variable depth sonar, and torpedo tubes.
It seems likely the CSC's SPY-7 will be distinct from Spain's version. Spain's version has Indra supplying the digital transmit/receive (TR) modules, whereas we have yet to hear of Indra's involvement with the CSC. Interestingly, when Japan cancelled their SPY-7 order, article's mentioned one contributing factor might have been that Japanese companies were supposed to be involved in supplying components for Japan's SPY-7 variant, but that didn't end up occurring. Sanmina in Ottawa supplies the TR modules for APAR/APAR Blk 2 so I'd be very curious if there is any local content in Canada's SPY-7 variant, possibly from Sanmina.
The SPY-7(V)2 in the F-110 also seems larger than the CSC. If the doors on the F-110 and CSC are both ~6 ft, the SPY-7(V)2 on the F-110 is noticeably larger than its doors possibly 8-10 ft whereas the SPY-7 on the CSC is similar in size or just slightly larger than its doors so possibly 6-8 ft. I wonder if Canadian stability standards are more strict than Spain's since the CSC is a larger ship overall than the F-110, yet the F-110 has a much larger mast with more, larger radars, mounted higher up? Even if due to cost reasons the CSC's SPY-7 isn't as large as the F-110, it seems sensible to try to mount it higher to maximize its performance.
Interesting video of HMCS Harry DeWolf during her "sea trials" (video courtesy RCN Twitter feed):
shipJGR
New Member
It looks like the differences between the Navy and Coast Guard #AOPSs include deleting the main gun on Coast Guard variants.
Yeah, and the CG version seems to have bridge wings, and a revised stern. Also deleted the Terma Scanter 6002 radar.
Interesting article on CSC in USNI: The Future Canadian Surface Combatant
Further confirmation this will be a single class of ship (no separate AAW version), with 32 VLS cells. For some reason they never seem to mention the two 3-cell ExLS launchers aft of the funnel, so it's really 38 VLS.
Further confirmation this will be a single class of ship (no separate AAW version), with 32 VLS cells. For some reason they never seem to mention the two 3-cell ExLS launchers aft of the funnel, so it's really 38 VLS.
Last edited:
The RCN website has published a new factsheet for the Canadian Surface Combatant, similar to the PDF linked by @Albedo in post #2525, but with more specifics, confirming much of what has been speculated.
Listed under 'Weapons' -
Listed under 'Weapons' -
- Missile Vertical Launch System 32 Cells – LMC MK 41
- Area Air Defence Missiles – Raytheon Standard Missile 2
- Point Defence Missiles – Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow
- Naval Fires Support – Raytheon Tomahawk
- Main Gun System – 127mm
- Lightweight Torpedoes MK54 & Twin Launch Tubes
- Close-In Air Defence System – MBDA Sea Ceptor
- Surface-to-Surface Anti-Ship Missile – Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile
- 2 x Stabilized Rapid Fire 30mm Naval Gun System – BAE
Last edited:
evil.totoro
New Member
Did the CSC variant grow a meter and a half from the 149.9 length of the standard Type 26? the graphic from the Canadian forces webpage posted states a length of 151.4 meters.
They're listing a slightly narrower beam for the CSC also, at 20.75 metres.
RN Type 26 (City Class)
Displacement - 6900 tonnes
Length - 149.9 metres
Beam - 20.8 metres
Top Speed - In excess of 26 knots
RAN Hunter Class
Displacement - Approximately 8800 tonnes (full load)
Length - 149.9 metres
Beam - 20.8 metres
Top Speed - In excess of 27 knots
RCN CSC
Displacement - 7800 tonnes
Length - 151.4 metres
Beam - 20.75 metres
Speed - 27 knots
Where would the CSC need that little bit of extra length, the forward missile silo?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Far more interesting is the wide variance in displacement between the three versions assuming the specifications are correct. The Hunter displacement is “full load” which may explain part of the difference. Also, the RN is 24 cells versus the CSC’s 32 plus the 3 ExLS. Not sure if the Hunter will have 32 or 48 cells?
Last edited:
Certainly looks like it. This was reported in the local paper about a year ago, and DND denied the ship would be stretched. (No need to lengthen Type 26 warship to meet Canada’s needs, says DND) It's not much of a stretch in any case, and a mate of mine thought it was mostly at the stern to accommodate a Canadian towed array.