Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
So how do you contact the reporter in question? They don't exactly make it easy for you to email them. I will see if I can hunt him down on twitter.
Pugliese probably has an email in the public domain somewhere but I am not looking for it as I said “almost tempted”. He probably pasted it into his column without scrutinizing it.
 

Flexson

Member
That article would be correct. You need the Launch Canisters. Mk13 are not the only variety. He probably should have worded it differently to "Verticle Launch Systems".


 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes. Exactly. Not a single-rail launcher. A cannister that adapts the Mk 41 to accommodate SM-2.
That is correct BUT the article mentions 100 MK 13 vertical launch systems, not canisters and zero mention about the MK 41 VLS. Not a big deal to us but not very informative to many of his readers who only have a passing interest in RCN matters.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The Mark 13 is (as previously suggested) also the canister used when SM-2 Block. II or III are loaded into a Mark 41 launcher.
Thanks for the info, didn’t know that, seems somewhat confusing that they would give both the original Launcher and the VLS Canister the same designation.
 

FOAC

New Member
I'm intrigued about the power of SPY 7 for CSC. I've been doing some digging of other GaN S band radars:

EASR (SPY6(V)3) - 1,400 transmitter receiver modules per array (FFGX 3 arrays) source - Richard Scott, Janes Navy International

Saab Sea Giraffe 4a - over 2000 trms per array (1 rotating or 4 fixed arrays) (source Bill Sweetman at a SAAB press event. SAAB unveil 2000 module GaN based radar & BMD capable radar.

CEAFAR for Hunter class - 4096 trms (6? arrays) (Source CEA technologies Understanding CEAFAR's Success)
 

Albedo

Active Member
A few more interesting tidbits on CSC in this Naval News article: Royal Canadian Navy Unveils New Details on CSC Frigates - Naval News

Seems like the main gun has not been finalized yet.
It looks like the discussions and analysis in this forum have been pretty spot on and done even faster than the media. :D

In regards to the main gun, Leonardo and BAE are collaborating to bring the Vulcano guided round from the Leonardo 127/64 LW to the BAE Mk45 Mod 4, but has there been any indication the Hyper Velocity Projectile could come to the Leonardo 127/64 LW? Currently the Leonardo 127/64 LW looks like the better gun based on higher rate of fire and Vulcano already fielded, but the HVP seems like too important a development to miss out on.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I'm intrigued about the power of SPY 7 for CSC. I've been doing some digging of other GaN S band radars:

EASR (SPY6(V)3) - 1,400 transmitter receiver modules per array (FFGX 3 arrays) source - Richard Scott, Janes Navy International

Saab Sea Giraffe 4a - over 2000 trms per array (1 rotating or 4 fixed arrays) (source Bill Sweetman at a SAAB press event. SAAB unveil 2000 module GaN based radar & BMD capable radar.

CEAFAR for Hunter class - 4096 trms (6? arrays) (Source CEA technologies Understanding CEAFAR's Success)
It's hard to find details such as the number of TRMs for this radar. There is a bit more detail here: Four Nations to be Protected with Lockheed Martin’s Next Generation Radar
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Looks like a contract for SPY-7 has been signed: Royal Canadian Navy to be Protected with Lockheed Martin's Advanced and Versatile SPY-7 Radar Under Newly Signed Contract

Interesting statement: "Partnering with our teammates, Lockheed Martin Canada has also begun the technology transfer of selected components of the radar system to Canadian suppliers for design, construction and implementation."

There are several Canadian companies that possess the technology to build the TRMs, one of which is Sanmina, about 5 kms from my house here in Ottawa (Ottawa - Sanmina). Sanmina had secured a deal with Thales that had APAR Block 2 been chosen for CSC they would have produced the TRMs for that radar (https://www.sanmina.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDR_-State-of-the-Art-Radar_Sanmina.pdf), so they are probably at least in the running. MDA would be another one.
 
Last edited:

Albedo

Active Member
Looks like a contract for SPY-7 has been signed: Royal Canadian Navy to be Protected with Lockheed Martin's Advanced and Versatile SPY-7 Radar Under Newly Signed Contract

Interesting statement: "Partnering with our teammates, Lockheed Martin Canada has also begun the technology transfer of selected components of the radar system to Canadian suppliers for design, construction and implementation."

There are several Canadian companies that possess the technology to build the TRMs, one of which is Sanmina, about 5 kms from my house here in Ottawa (Ottawa - Sanmina). Sanmina had secured a deal with Thales that had APAR Block 2 been chosen for CSC they would have produced the TRMs for that radar (https://www.sanmina.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDR_-State-of-the-Art-Radar_Sanmina.pdf), so they are probably at least in the running. MDA would be another one.
From that press release the SPY-7 is formed from "subarray suite" building blocks. SPY-6 is formed from building blocks called Radar Modular Assemblies that are 2 ft x 2ft. It'd be great to find out the size of a SPY-7 subarray suite building block, but there hasn't been many pictures of LRDR//SPY-7 and in those I've seen, it isn't clear what part could be the subarray.



For example the LRDR installation picture in the article above shows a series of rectangular tiles which are about 3 times wider than they are tall. The Genie S-125 crane has a 12 ft wheelbase which is also approximately the length of the crane's grey main body. In the picture, the crane is at an angle to the radar which distorts things, but the crane's main body length seems to be between 3 and 4 rectangular tiles long. I would estimate each rectangular tile is 3 ft x 1 ft. If these rectangles are the "subarray suite" building blocks, the most reasonable size options for the CSC's square SPY-7 would be either 6 ft x 6 ft or 9 ft x 9 ft. I'd guess the CSC would have 6 ft x 6 ft arrays while the F-110 has 9 ft x 9 ft.
EQmNU1bWsAcFmn0.jpg

However this other picture of the LRDR installation doesn't show those clear rectangular tiles. The vertical panel is composed of lots of small squares and it isn't clear whether those are "subarray suites" or individual TRMs or something else.
 

Barnold

Member
"Partnering with our teammates, Lockheed Martin Canada has also begun the technology transfer of selected components of the radar system to Canadian suppliers for design, construction and implementation. The work in Canada will open doors to a new export market for local industry, producing high value jobs in Quebec and across the country through subcontractors and suppliers involved in the production."

That mention of jobs in Quebec seems too specific not to mean a particular company. Any idea who it might be?


While we're kind of on the subject of Canadian suppliers, I've been wondering if Thordon bearings and Dominis propellers might be used by the CSC. I missed it at the time, but this summer, they teamed up with Patriot Forge Co., forming a consortium to push for inclusion in Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy, with their Canadian Integrated Shaftline System (CISS), "an entirely made-in-Canada solution".

CISS Announcement
CISS Partners
 

Barnold

Member
From that press release the SPY-7 is formed from "subarray suite" building blocks. SPY-6 is formed from building blocks called Radar Modular Assemblies that are 2 ft x 2ft. It'd be great to find out the size of a SPY-7 subarray suite building block, but there hasn't been many pictures of LRDR//SPY-7 and in those I've seen, it isn't clear what part could be the subarray.
In Canadian Naval Review Vol. 15, No. 3, Timothy Choi (TimDotChoi on twitter) detailed a tour he took of Lockheed Martin's Solid State Radar facility in Moorestown, New Jersey on December 10, 2019.

"While the basic units of the SPY-6 are to be the 2-foot cubed Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs), Lockheed Martin’s most basic units are shoebox-sized sub-arrays. The long axis of these shoe-boxes is perpendicular to the face of the overall antenna."
 

Albedo

Active Member
In Canadian Naval Review Vol. 15, No. 3, Timothy Choi (TimDotChoi on twitter) detailed a tour he took of Lockheed Martin's Solid State Radar facility in Moorestown, New Jersey on December 10, 2019.

"While the basic units of the SPY-6 are to be the 2-foot cubed Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs), Lockheed Martin’s most basic units are shoebox-sized sub-arrays. The long axis of these shoe-boxes is perpendicular to the face of the overall antenna."
Thanks. Shoebox-sized sub-arrays would give a lot of options for SPY-7 sizing, even more than SPY-6. We'll have to hope there's eventually an explicit statement on the CSC's SPY-7 size since it'll be difficult to determine accurately from pictures.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It looks like the discussions and analysis in this forum have been pretty spot on and done even faster than the media. :D

In regards to the main gun, Leonardo and BAE are collaborating to bring the Vulcano guided round from the Leonardo 127/64 LW to the BAE Mk45 Mod 4, but has there been any indication the Hyper Velocity Projectile could come to the Leonardo 127/64 LW? Currently the Leonardo 127/64 LW looks like the better gun based on higher rate of fire and Vulcano already fielded, but the HVP seems like too important a development to miss out on.
I hadn't heard anything about Leonardo/BAE working together on Volcano, so went searching & turned up this, from 2017...

Vulcano Precision-Guided Munitions
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another good video of HMCS Harry DeWolf: (courtesy RCN twitter feed):
Nice ship but i cant help but think that "push button" telegraphs are an incident waiting to happen.
In these days of remote control when the ships driver is using the controls (as opposed to conning) nothing is more logical than pushing forward when you want to move forward and pulling back when reversing, its a natural movement requiring no eye contact.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Nice ship but i cant help but think that "push button" telegraphs are an incident waiting to happen.
In these days of remote control when the ships driver is using the controls (as opposed to conning) nothing is more logical than pushing forward when you want to move forward and pulling back when reversing, its a natural movement requiring no eye contact.
I would agree too. It also lacks that slow increments / decreases in power that are required for certain evolutions such as towing, for example.
 
Top