Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
Leadmark 2050 does not mention CEC by name but on page 54 some of its concepts are alluded to. It is rather disappointing that no LHDs are mentioned as a future capability. Their usefulness for HADR alone make them worthy for consideration. The dark cloud in all this is the appalling level of public and private debt in Canada along with government mismanagement (junior's campaign comment, "the budget will take care of itself" comes to mind). Provincial governments aren't much better. I fear 15 CSC ships is optimistic. If junior thinks buying used Hornets is a good idea, can used ships be an even better one in his mind?
Click to expand...
Well now, maybe for a couple hundred million more Australia could throw in a couple of used Frigates:D on top of the Hornets
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
Can’t see the RCN using SeaCeptor as Canada is a development partner on the ESSM but apparently SeaCeptor capability is being added to the LM Canada CMS330 for NZ’s ANZAC modernization ( see link) so it could be considered if there are advantages to it. As for future radars, haven’t seen anything concrete yet.

Careful consideration: Positioning the next Canadian Frigates for the Fights of the Future | CDA Institute
Click to expand...
Given ESSM block II is around the corner I cannot see RCN adding another missile to support to their stocks for no real advantage.

...... but I have been wrong in the past.
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
The next new missle is likely to be SeaRam as a replacement for Phalanx CIWS.

I do expect SM2 in varying quantities on all ships as well as some type of SSM to replace Harpoon. The likelihood of a BMD capability I think would require a global change in international tensions and a change in government. Junior definately wont be signing off on that one.

As to Leadmark 2050 i think we may see the BHS as another conversion project using MV Obilix. I keep hearing comments from some of the contractors we work with who are in the information stream. Only time will tell but MV Asterix has definetly proven her worth so far.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Belesarius said:
The Brit variant has a few Mk41 cells. It also has the SeaCeptor. Do you think it likely that we'll use the SeaCeptor as well, or swap out the space used for those for more Mk41 cells? The VLS is pretty flaexible, so that gives us payload upgradability later if needed.

Also, how capable is the radar we're looking at? I'm not much of a radar geek, so how does it compare to say, AEGIS on a Burke?
Click to expand...
AEGIS is not just the radar, it's a whole system and expensive.
 
B

Belesarius

New Member
ngatimozart said:
AEGIS is not just the radar, it's a whole system and expensive.
Click to expand...
I understand that. How does the 330/Radar combo that we are proposing to use stack up against AEGIS system, and is it scalable for new systems? (Like say the SM-3/SM-6)

I'm wondering how future proof the system is, and how interoperable with US/NATO systems it is.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Belesarius said:
I understand that. How does the 330/Radar combo that we are proposing to use stack up against AEGIS system, and is it scalable for new systems? (Like say the SM-3/SM-6)

I'm wondering how future proof the system is, and how interoperable with US/NATO systems it is.
Click to expand...
AEGIS is a level above but considering Lockheed Martin are the CMS OEM for AEGIS and are also the CMS 330 OEM, then I would suspect that whilst it isn't AEGIS, CMS 330 should be no slouch either. Yes AEGIS is scalable as evidenced by it's integration onto Australian, Spanish, Norwegian, South Korean and Japanese platforms, plus it is being integrated with the Australian CEA radar system on the RAN Hunter class FFG.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Belesarius said:
I understand that. How does the 330/Radar combo that we are proposing to use stack up against AEGIS system, and is it scalable for new systems? (Like say the SM-3/SM-6)

I'm wondering how future proof the system is, and how interoperable with US/NATO systems it is.
Click to expand...
The EASR radar that is reputed to be the RCN's preference is actually a variant of the AMDR (or SPY-6). It uses 9 Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs), identical to those used in the SPY-6, and according to Raytheon is as sensitive as SPY-1D(V) (Raytheon: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar). Interestingly, the CSC concept illustration on page 48 of Leadmark 2050 shows a SPY-type radar, characterized by the rather unique octagonal shape, whereas the Type 26 CSC "model" has a square radar panel, which is characteristic of EASR (but also other systems, see Note 2 below). The modularity of this system means the more RMAs you add the more sensitive the system, so perhaps there is an upgrade path built into the RCN's plans. Interoperabilty with NATO would be excellent, though that is more a function of the communications systems such as Link 16 and CEC than the actual radar. There are also obvious logistical advantages to having an American radar, that are attractive to the RCN.

Note1: This is the same radar the USN has specified for FFG(X).

Note2: It is also important to remember that while the Type 26 is the preferred design for CSC, the project is now in the last but arguably most important phase, which is the negotiation over IP, availability of systems, and pricing. ITAR proved to be a major stumbling block with the Halifax upgrade, and resulted in the RCN selecting many non-American systems in order to keep that project on schedule. This is why the radar on the Type 26 submission has been a bit of a mystery, whereas the other two competitors have been very candid about the radar in their proposals (Alion with APAR, and Navantia with CEAFAR2). If during the negotiations it is found that EASR is not available in an appropriate timeframe due to the ITAR approval process taking too long, or due to pricing, the LM submission can accommodate another system with relative ease. This is the beauty of the Type 26 - it's very flexible. Hensoldt's TRS-4D is one possibility, and some combination of APAR block 2 and a volume search radar is another. In other words, the LM submission is radar-agnostic. So, we will only know for sure sometime this winter when they finish negotiations and sign a development contract.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
alexsa said:
Given ESSM block II is around the corner I cannot see RCN adding another missile to support to their stocks for no real advantage.

...... but I have been wrong in the past.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, but interestingly though, Alexsa, while at the local defence tradeshow (CANSEC 2018) this past May, I visited the MBDA booth and saw that they were trying to sell a 3-layer defensive strategy for Type 26, built around SeaCeptor (CAMM), ESSM block 2, and SM-2/SM-6, so who knows. While having multiple different systems is actually a really good concept, in reality I can't see the RCN introducing a new missile into the mix.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Calculus ...the link in my post #1301 mentions the need to integrate SM-3 and SM-6 into the CMS330 system and the likely IP and ITAR considerations. The same applies to the EASR. As our CSC ships will often be joining with USN task forces, it is likely they would help lobby for quick approval for the RCN but you never know how these decisions will proceed. The glacial pace certainly could end up assisting Euro radar vendors as in the case of the Halifax upgrade. Perhaps CEAFAR might even be considered if delays in approval and IP issues become significant. Building a relationship with Australia could be very valuable as Australia will become an important submarine purchase possibility by the time our Victorias reach their end of life.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
@Calculus ...the link in my post #1301 mentions the need to integrate SM-3 and SM-6 into the CMS330 system and the likely IP and ITAR considerations. The same applies to the EASR. As our CSC ships will often be joining with USN task forces, it is likely they would help lobby for quick approval for the RCN but you never know how these decisions will proceed. The glacial pace certainly could end up assisting Euro radar vendors as in the case of the Halifax upgrade. Perhaps CEAFAR might even be considered if delays in approval and IP issues become significant. Building a relationship with Australia could be very valuable as Australia will become an important submarine purchase possibility by the time our Victorias reach their end of life.
Click to expand...
John, agreed. One would hope the RCN has been "greasing the wheels" with the Americans these past few years, but given the somewhat tense relations lately our political masters may not want to give any business to American companies if there are equivalent options available elsewhere. There are certainly a few other good non-American naval radar systems, such as the previously mentioned TRS-4D. Given the great experience the RCN has had with Thales and Smart-S on the Halifax upgrade, something like IMAST or Sea Fire 500 would also be a good fit. Sea Fire 500 was selected for the new French Navy Fregate de Taille Intermediaire (FTI), and is a thoroughly modern, scalable radar system with impressive specifications and capabilities

(
).
 
B

beegee

Active Member
Calculus said:
John, agreed. One would hope the RCN has been "greasing the wheels" with the Americans these past few years, but given the somewhat tense relations lately our political masters may not want to give any business to American companies if there are equivalent options available elsewhere. There are certainly a few other good non-American naval radar systems, such as the previously mentioned TRS-4D. Given the great experience the RCN has had with Thales and Smart-S on the Halifax upgrade, something like IMAST or Sea Fire 500 would also be a good fit. Sea Fire 500 was selected for the new French Navy Fregate de Taille Intermediaire (FTI), and is a thoroughly modern, scalable radar system with impressive specifications and capabilities

(
).
Click to expand...
If you want to launch STANDARD missiles and be able to engage more than two targets at once then you'll need an American radar, CEAFAR2 or APAR blk 2.
 
B

beegee

Active Member
Calculus said:
The EASR radar that is reputed to be the RCN's preference is actually a variant of the AMDR (or SPY-6). It uses 9 Radar Module Assemblies (RMAs), identical to those used in the SPY-6, and according to Raytheon is as sensitive as SPY-1D(V) (Raytheon: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar). Interestingly, the CSC concept illustration on page 48 of Leadmark 2050 shows a SPY-type radar, characterized by the rather unique octagonal shape, whereas the Type 26 CSC "model" has a square radar panel, which is characteristic of EASR (but also other systems, see Note 2 below). The modularity of this system means the more RMAs you add the more sensitive the system, so perhaps there is an upgrade path built into the RCN's plans. Interoperabilty with NATO would be excellent, though that is more a function of the communications systems such as Link 16 and CEC than the actual radar. There are also obvious logistical advantages to having an American radar, that are attractive to the RCN.

Note1: This is the same radar the USN has specified for FFG(X).

Note2: It is also important to remember that while the Type 26 is the preferred design for CSC, the project is now in the last but arguably most important phase, which is the negotiation over IP, availability of systems, and pricing. ITAR proved to be a major stumbling block with the Halifax upgrade, and resulted in the RCN selecting many non-American systems in order to keep that project on schedule. This is why the radar on the Type 26 submission has been a bit of a mystery, whereas the other two competitors have been very candid about the radar in their proposals (Alion with APAR, and Navantia with CEAFAR2). If during the negotiations it is found that EASR is not available in an appropriate timeframe due to the ITAR approval process taking too long, or due to pricing, the LM submission can accommodate another system with relative ease. This is the beauty of the Type 26 - it's very flexible. Hensoldt's TRS-4D is one possibility, and some combination of APAR block 2 and a volume search radar is another. In other words, the LM submission is radar-agnostic. So, we will only know for sure sometime this winter when they finish negotiations and sign a development contract.
Click to expand...
EASR is designed to operate with a three face fixed array. Did you notice that CSC models have a four face fixed array? I found that interesting.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Early days still, we should know something in 2019 wrt radar selection. Raytheon is likely painfully aware about how politics can derail their chances.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
beegee said:
EASR is designed to operate with a three face fixed array. Did you notice that CSC models have a four face fixed array? I found that interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes! Well spotted beegee. So, there are a few possibilities that might explain this apparent discrepancy. One, which I have seen reported elsewhere (I will try and find the reference and post it later), is that EASR can be had with any number of panels. Another is that the CSC will actually use AMDR (SPY-6), with a reduced number of RMAs (reduced from the 37 in the SPY-6 for the Flight 3 Burkes). The third is that the CSC models and renderings are not reflective of the final configuration, which I suspect is the likely case. I have seen many different models and renderings, where the radar(s) (assuming the smaller panel is not CEC) were shown as 1) a larger panel (perhaps the volume search) on top of a smaller panel (targeting?), 2) a panel within a panel (multi-function radar?), and 3) a smaller panel on top of a larger panel. Still, knowing the RCN's fixation on interoperability with the USN, I still think EASR or or perhaps AMDR are the most likely candidates, with the smaller panel being CEC.

 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Haven't seen any info confirming the turbine's servicibility yet. In any event, replacing a turbine is better than replacing a ship.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This sixth AOPS is more about dragging out the CSC build date and keeping Irving's Workforce employed rather than increasing the RCN’s presence. Nevertheless six is better than five.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top