Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Vanquish]

I understand as a tax payer myself that everyone of course gets a little weak kneed when any program starts out with a $B in front of it. Sometimes though I really believe that the average person soon forgets about the costs of a program if the need can be justified properly and the negative reporting is muted.

I look at the CSC Type 26 program costs, the original cost for the program was around $14B. That certainly took most Canadians breath away at the time of that announcement. It then basically doubled and doubled again and now we're all the way up to around $77B. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that creep even further.

I don't find or hear for that matter any real doom or gloom about the CSC program from the average Joe blow Canadian or even the media any more. I believe people for the most part have come to accept that the ships are needed and that modern military tech is well, just plain expensive.

I wish the Conservative and Liberal parties of Canada could come together on military procurements, much like they do in Australia. As procurements take so long to achieve fruition both of the main political parties should support fulfillment of whatever is chosen so as to not have the constant debate and incessant hand wringing. Perhaps behind closed doors both parties could be apprised of what would be best for Canada and the military and then come out in full support of whatever is decided. I'm not including the other parties in that because I know they won't support military expenditures anyway and they also aren't much likely to ever hold the balance of power either.

As much as I personally would like to see Canada go with a nuclear fleet I know that's just fantasy so I will drop it. I wouldn't be at all surprised though to see France come knocking on Canada's door shortly though with have we got a deal for you.

 

[John Fedup]

@Vanquish Media BS and general apathy by Canadians largely explains our defence situation (along with depressing socialist crap). Media always obscured the the various cost differences wrt the CSC (lower numbers first quoted were for ship only cost, later numbers included lifecycle costs and further along the program costs then included infrastructure costs). Then you have normal inflation AND delay start inflation. The latter is close to 2 billion per year. I should add it isn’t entirely the media’s fault, government used different figures depending on political heat at the moment.

As for French SSNs, that won’t happen. SSKs might not happen either if there isn’t a serious rethink on defence by the political class and our electorate. I have previously mentioned in various threads this rethink will likely happen when it is too late.

 

[Git_Kraken]

To our Canadian friends on this forum .... how has the "AUKUS" announcement been covered by the Canadian media, military analysts and your politicians?

As the RCN operates submarines that will need replacing ... could a future Canadian government (as presumably the current Trudeau government won't) potentially join this new alliance (CAUKUS?) and also acquire US nuclear submarine technology? Has there been any chatter yet?

It showed up in the election news because the main parties were asked about it. I don't think it moved any votes though. The main focus was on intelligence sharing as no party was interested in discussing new submarines at this time. Not being in AUKUS isn't a big deal. Anyone who is even remotely adjacent to the intelligence (military) knows that allies talk sidebar all the time. There are no true surprises. Any intelligence shared between US, UK and Australia that isn't covered under Five Eyes will likely only be related to nuclear submarines, their deployment and operations.

Also Canada is in bilateral intelligence agreements with UK and US anyways so again tempest in a teapot IMHO.

 

[Goknub]

I wonder if Canada would be open to a few 2nd-hand Collins in the future. They'll be pretty long in the tooth but they'll be in working order and have the range Canada would find useful. They've already sourcing ex-RAAF F18s.

 

[Redlands18]

I wonder if Canada would be open to a few 2nd-hand Collins in the future. They'll be pretty long in the tooth but they'll be in working order and have the range Canada would find useful. They've already sourcing ex-RAAF F18s.

The Collins class are going through a Life of Type Extension(LOTE) they will all see 40+ years service in the RAN, that is now unavoidable, add in the amount of time it will take to introduce each SSN, They won't have any life left in them.

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder if Canada would be open to a few 2nd-hand Collins in the future. They'll be pretty long in the tooth but they'll be in working order and have the range Canada would find useful. They've already sourcing ex-RAAF F18s.

Short answer, either new boats or nothing.

 

[Bravonavyzulu]

The new TK Type 212CD being acquired by Germany and Norway are similar in size to the current Victoria class and with an active build underway could provide an option for Canada given the time frame for acquisition. I could see fabrication of the hull in Germany with final fit out in Victoria for local content. I do not see us undertaking complete construction as this is likely way beyond our build capability. Whatever is done I would be very surprised if the RCN were to receive nuclear technology given our current governments ties to China.

 

[Barnold]

Lockheed Martin Canada appears to have revealed a Canadian Surface Combatant update on their website.

I think they've got the Leonardo gun on it now, but the most obvious difference is the taller mast.

(Image source: www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca)

Additional image HERE

(Image source: www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca)

 

[Vanquish]

Lockheed Martin Canada appears to have revealed a Canadian Surface Combatant update on their website.

I think they've got the Leonardo gun on it now, but the most obvious difference is the taller mast.

(Image source: www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca)

Additional image HERE

(Image source: www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca)

I notice only 24 VLS. That seems to be a change from the previous images always showing 32 VLS. Maybe that's to do with the extra top weight with the higher mast.

 

[Redlands18]

I notice only 24 VLS. That seems to be a change from the previous images always showing 32 VLS. Maybe that's to do with the extra top weight with the higher mast.

View attachment 48542

Looks like they have removed the 2 large Aft Antenna arrays which are a feature of the Type 26, and moved the sensors etc into the main Mast

 

[Barnold]

I notice only 24 VLS. That seems to be a change from the previous images always showing 32 VLS. Maybe that's to do with the extra top weight with the higher mast.

View attachment 48542

I'm not sure that Lockheed Martin's digital renderings can be used as an accurate indication of the number of Mk 41 cells on the CSC.

For whatever reason, Lockheed Martin's renderings of the Canadian Surface Combatant have usually only shown 24 Mk 41 VLS cells, while the physical models have had 32 cells in that forward location, and the RCN factsheet says 32.

It's kind of a bad angle, but it looks to me like there are only three 8-cell Mk 41 modules in this older LMC image.

In a quick search of CSC digital renderings, I was able to find just one that had 32 Mk 41 cells properly arranged, as they are on the models.

 

[John Newman]

One thing to consider is, if the increase in height, and presumably weight too, of the main mast causes a stability or top weight issue, it may require a reduction of the planned 32 VLS back to the original UK T26 24 VLS.

All speculation of course, and assuming the updated CGI is accurate, but that may be the reason.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

One thing to consider is, if the increase in height, and presumably weight too, of the main mast causes a stability or top weight issue, it may require a reduction of the planned 32 VLS back to the original UK T26 24 VLS.

All speculation of course, and assuming the updated CGI is accurate, but that may be the reason.

Cheers,

I wouldn't be to concerned yet. The Canuck pollies still have plenty of time to put an Uluru sized oar into the proceedings. It ain't over until the large shelia has sung and she hasn't got her opera clobber on yet.

 

[John Fedup]

I am more concerned about a reduction in the build number of hulls than a reduction in VLS. Reducing the hull number will cluster up the overall cost and build cycle for naval ships (the later assumes no new ship alternatives). Given the financial mess junior has created, DND is first in line for cuts. Twelve instead of fifteen CSCs and fifty new jets instead of eighty eight, an easy sell to our moronic electorate.

 

[Git_Kraken]

You only see 24 Strike length Mk41 VLS on the foc'sle. The ship still has 6 ExLS (shorter VLS for quad packed CAMM) amidships which makes 30 VLS total. This still means that this ship could in theory carry 24 CAMM and 96 ESSM II. That's 104 more self-defense missiles than the Halifax Class has.

Even if you go with 16 SM family missiles you still have 32 ESSM II and 24 CAMM. Its a pretty interesting combination of missiles. Tomahawk would likely be mission dependant.

I wouldn't be to concerned yet. The Canuck pollies still have plenty of time to put an Uluru sized oar into the proceedings. It ain't over until the large shelia has sung and she hasn't got her opera clobber on yet.

I lived in Brisbane for a year and Perth for another. Spent 3 months in NZ. This is perhaps the most ANZAC thing I have ever read/heard in my life. The only thing missing is a fair dinkum... lol

For whatever reason, Lockheed Martin's renderings of the Canadian Surface Combatant have usually only shown 24 Mk 41 VLS cells, while the physical models have had 32 cells in that forward location, and the RCN factsheet says 32.

The project just went into its finishing initial design review if I recall correctly. I would argue that the factsheet is likely out of date at this time. That mast looks very detailed and legit. That's got to dig into a VLS margin forward, particularly if you already have VLS higher aft.

 

[Albedo]

You only see 24 Strike length Mk41 VLS on the foc'sle. The ship still has 6 ExLS (shorter VLS for quad packed CAMM) amidships which makes 30 VLS total. This still means that this ship could in theory carry 24 CAMM and 96 ESSM II. That's 104 more self-defense missiles than the Halifax Class has.

Even if you go with 16 SM family missiles you still have 32 ESSM II and 24 CAMM. Its a pretty interesting combination of missiles. Tomahawk would likely be mission dependant.

With the large antennae removed from either side of the ExLS launchers, it's possible the 2 x 3 ExLS modules have been expanded into 4 x 3. Trading 1 x 8 Mk 41 and some ESSM for more CAMM and ExLS allows the retention of some air defence capability and magazine depth while banking quite a bit of weight savings. 48 CAMM + 24 Mk 41 VLS would give the CSC the same base armament as the original Type 26, just in a more space efficient manner while allowing for a much better radar.

It's also interesting in the new model that the 8-cell Mk 41 modules are individually separated. Assuming this is accurate, I wonder if this means each 8-cell module is individually compartmentalized? I noted before in the German Navy thread a report from Jane's that the FGS Sachsen is still awaiting a new replacement 32-cell Mk 41 after damage from a single SM-2 misfire in 2018. If there are only 24 Mk 41 in the CSC, making them more resilient from accidents and battle damage would be a good thing.

Formidable class frigates of the Republic of Singapore Navy

Written by D-Mitch RSS Formidable leading vessel of the Formidable class frigates Photo: Republic of Singapore Navy The Formida...

www.navalanalyses.com

Other observations on the new model are:

• The decoy launchers on the bridge wings do not look like the Rheinmetall MASS and appear most similar to the Safran NGDS II
• The secondary guns on the hanger wings like most similar to the winterized fully enclosed 25 mm Mk 38/Typhoon in the AOPS. Hopefully this means they are winterizing the 30 mm Typhoon rather than reducing the gun to the 25 mm Typhoon.
• It's still missing the dual navigation radars (X and S-band) promised in the previous factsheet and is common in warships
• I hope some of the fixed antennae arrays above SPY-7 on the new mast are dedicated high mounted horizon search radar for enhanced detection of sea skimming missiles
• Is the pod mounted on the small dedicated pedestal between the mission bay doors and secondary gun wings for life saving equipment? Clearly life saving equipment is important, but that position seems disruptive to the ship's radar signature.
• What is the cubic box on the flight deck? The 3 ship image suggests it's only on the starboard side. Given the Chinook-sized flight deck, it's probably not disruptive to a CH-148 landing, but is still very out of place.

I am more concerned about a reduction in the build number of hulls than a reduction in VLS. Reducing the hull number will cluster up the overall cost and build cycle for naval ships (the later assumes no new ship alternatives). Given the financial mess junior has created, DND is first in line for cuts. Twelve instead of fifteen CSCs and fifty new jets instead of eighty eight, an easy sell to our moronic electorate.

The CSC program does have the benefit of being made-in-Canada. If they do go with the F-35, the compromise could be an smaller initial buy with the opportunity to buy more from the hot production line as the budget allows.

EDIT: Forget to mention the purpose of the link to the article on the Formidable-class is that the article includes a picture of the Safran NGDS II, which looks very similar to what's on the new CSC model.

 

[Git_Kraken]

With the large antennae removed from either side of the ExLS launchers, it's possible the 2 x 3 ExLS modules have been expanded into 4 x 3. Trading 1 x 8 Mk 41 and some ESSM for more CAMM and ExLS allows the retention of some air defence capability and magazine depth while banking quite a bit of weight savings. 48 CAMM + 24 Mk 41 VLS would give the CSC the same base armament as the original Type 26, just in a more space efficient manner while allowing for a much better radar.

No idea. I normally the ExLS come in packages of 3 each, so your multiples are correct but that placement would eat into the flex space. As the CAMM is also the CIAD system that might be more missiles than needed for the "last gasp" defence. The UK use their CAMM in the way the RCN uses ESSM. Unless there is a change of heart to their stated way of operations.

It's also interesting in the new model that the 8-cell Mk 41 modules are individually separated. Assuming this is accurate, I wonder if this means each 8-cell module is individually compartmentalized? I noted before in the German Navy thread a report from Jane's that the FGS Sachsen is still awaiting a new replacement 32-cell Mk 41 after damage from a single SM-2 misfire in 2018. If there are only 24 Mk 41 in the CSC, making them more resilient from accidents and battle damage would be a good thing.

Formidable class frigates of the Republic of Singapore Navy

Written by D-Mitch RSS Formidable leading vessel of the Formidable class frigates Photo: Republic of Singapore Navy The Formida...

www.navalanalyses.com

That is interesting to note. Survivability has been highlighted by the CRCN and its highlighted on the project website.

Other observations on the new model are:

1. The decoy launchers on the bridge wings do not look like the Rheinmetall MASS and appear most similar to the Safran NGDS II
2. The secondary guns on the hanger wings like most similar to the winterized fully enclosed 25 mm Mk 38/Typhoon in the AOPS. Hopefully this means they are winterizing the 30 mm Typhoon rather than reducing the gun to the 25 mm Typhoon.
3. It's still missing the dual navigation radars (X and S-band) promised in the previous factsheet and is common in warships
4. I hope some of the fixed antennae arrays above SPY-7 on the new mast are dedicated high mounted horizon search radar for enhanced detection of sea skimming missiles
5. Is the pod mounted on the small dedicated pedestal between the mission bay doors and secondary gun wings for life saving equipment? Clearly life saving equipment is important, but that position seems disruptive to the ship's radar signature.
6. What is the cubic box on the flight deck? The 3 ship image suggests it's only on the starboard side. Given the Chinook-sized flight deck, it's probably not disruptive to a CH-148 landing, but is still very out of place.

I've taken the liberty to edit your post and give the list numbers so I can address each one.

1. I agree. There is also one just forward of the stack aft of the Naval Strike Missile launchers.
2. It states on the project site that the weapons will be 30mm. I have no reason to think otherwise. However given that the main gun is a Leonardo vice BAE, perhaps the 30mm are Leonardo as well? The MARLIN is an excellent system and you can even choose your flavour of cannon (Mauser, Bushmaster). The newest MARLIN can have airburst munition programming, not sure the BAE gun does that.
3. I'm sure the Nav radars will not be forgotten about... lol
4. Those fixed antenna look like ESM of various types.
5. No idea. Usually white dome like things are just that. Radomes of some type.
6. It's likely a placeholder for the Landing Safety Officer position. RCAF prefer to have the landing safety officer in a widowed control position with their head and shoulders at deck level. It increases the safety of deck landings for a helicopter and other helicopter related evolutions. Many other navies don't do this and run everything from control position elsewhere.

 

[Albedo]

No idea. I normally the ExLS come in packages of 3 each, so your multiples are correct but that placement would eat into the flex space. As the CAMM is also the CIAD system that might be more missiles than needed for the "last gasp" defence. The UK use their CAMM in the way the RCN uses ESSM. Unless there is a change of heart to their stated way of operations.

I don't have any insight into how intended doctrine influences this, but in terms of placement, increasing the ExLS launchers shouldn't intrude into the mission bay. The ExLS appear to be mounted above the mission bay in the CSC with no penetration. In the 2 x 3 ExLS configuration, the silo was narrower than the main funnel in the CSC whereas the aft CAMM mushroom silo is wider than the funnel in the Type 26. Widening the ExLS silo to 4 x 3 would pretty much just take up as much surface area as the Type 26's aft CAMM silo while holding double the missiles.

I've taken the liberty to edit your post and give the list numbers so I can address each one.

1. I agree. There is also one just forward of the stack aft of the Naval Strike Missile launchers.
2. It states on the project site that the weapons will be 30mm. I have no reason to think otherwise. However given that the main gun is a Leonardo vice BAE, perhaps the 30mm are Leonardo as well? The MARLIN is an excellent system and you can even choose your flavour of cannon (Mauser, Bushmaster). The newest MARLIN can have airburst munition programming, not sure the BAE gun does that.
3. I'm sure the Nav radars will not be forgotten about... lol
4. Those fixed antenna look like ESM of various types.
5. No idea. Usually white dome like things are just that. Radomes of some type.
6. It's likely a placeholder for the Landing Safety Officer position. RCAF prefer to have the landing safety officer in a widowed control position with their head and shoulders at deck level. It increases the safety of deck landings for a helicopter and other helicopter related evolutions. Many other navies don't do this and run everything from control position elsewhere.

1. Yes. The Safran NGDS II on the bridge wings are anti-missile decoys (hopefully they've learned from the Halifax-class Rheinmetall MASS fitout and there's another launcher covering the aft arc) while the Ultra Expendable Acoustic Device launchers on top of the mission bays are anti-torpedo decoy.
2. The BAE 30mm Machine Gun System does indeed fire ABM. Given BAE is on the CSC design consortium I was impressed they entertained giving the main gun order to Leonardo. It'll be interesting if BAE doesn't get the secondary gun order either.
4. Yes. Most likely some are ESM and others may be IFF interrogators similar to the Thales TSA 6000.
5. The white spherical dome off the side of the aft stack above the secondary gun seems like the antenna. But I was referring to the horizontally aligned cylinder forward of that, sticking out of the hull near the mission bay door. That looks like a life raft pod.
6. That's a great insight. Thanks.

 

[Git_Kraken]

The consortium doesn't have full control over what weapons are put on board. The project office gets to decide on that one. LMC is the prime/ combat systems integrator and BAE is the design authority.

If Leonardo came in with a better package that checked more boxes for the RCN then that would have been the weapon system selected. Which I think is what happened here. Leonardo has an excellent weapon with the 127/64 LW and their magazine management system is also top notch. LMC isn't going to make any more or less money with a Leonardo submission over a BAE one. BAE might not like the choice but they are making their money doing all the design work and Naval Architecture calculations etc...

 

[Git_Kraken]

HMCS Harry DeWolf off of Prince Rupert, BC. On their way to Vancouver and Victoria.

The ship has completed its Northwest Passage sail. First RCN ship to do the full NWP since... probably HMCS Labrador was retired.

After that, they are scheduled to sail to Mexico and the Caribbean by way of the Panama Canal to do OP CARIBBE with the USCG. Then back to Halifax for a full circumnavigation of North America.

Not going to lie, those are some nice "mess dinner" bragging points.

• Arctic Circle (Loyal Order of the Polar Bear or Blue Nose for those non-Canadian's)
• Northwest Passage
• Panama Canal
• Caribbean Transnavigation (Order of the Spanish Main)
• Circumnavigation of North America (No order yet that I know of, there probably should be one).