By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by stephen weist, Sep 30, 2005.
Further to that, looks like the hold has been lifted.
And from CBC Trade Tribunal Rescinds Order.
The NZ decision was made about 2014, from memory, and ESSM Blk II was still a paper missile at that stage. Sea Ceptor was in it's testing stage and nearing flight trials. It offered more than ESSM did at the time, was cheaper and the poms did a good sale job.
I would not really consider it to have offered 'more' than ESSM at the time, rather Sea Ceptor was deemed a better fit, given what the RNZN wanted, had to work with, and what gov't would allow.
For those who have not been following the RAN or RNZN threads, the ANZAC-class FFH's (MEKO 200) have had topweight issues. Those issues have required different solutions since the RAN and RNZN frigates are not the same, with the Kiwi frigates also mounting a Mk 15 Phalanx above the hangar IIRC, which would add more topweight.
By switching to Sea Ceptor, the RNZN would be able to field a smaller, lighter missile which would not require something as large and heavy as a Mk 41 VLS. Also, due to a different seeker (ESSM has a SARH) the Sea Ceptor does not require an illuminator, which in turn further reduces some of the topweight.
The RNZN could certainly have followed the RAN's lead and adopted quad-packed ESSM, but that would have required the removal of the Phalanx CIWS. In hindsight, I think it would have been a better decision to follow the RAN's lead but things are too far long at this point to change.
Great news if true. Good sense prevails.
Sorry cobber disagree. The RNZN ANZAC FFG/Hs don't have the same level of top weight issue's that the RAN ones do due to not having the 8 SSM slant launchers and the large CEA phased array radars topside. They sit lower in the water and are 2 knots slower than the RNZN FFG/Hs. Yes the RNZN mount one Mk 15 Phalanx above the hangar but it's top weight is still somewhat less than that of the RAN set up. The new mast being added to the RNZN ships will increase top weight, but overall the top weight will still be somewhat less than the RAN ANZAC Class.
Sea Ceptor at present still has OPERATIONAL capabilities that ESSM doesn't. It doesn't need an illuminator because it has an active RF seeker and it can take out fast surface movers (FAIC) at ranges ≥ 1 nm. Now it's range is given as in excess of 25 km, so could be 40 km - who knows? There is also a Sea Ceptor ER and again MBDA are being coy about it's range.
Janes reported the Sea Ceptor trials actually showed it having a range of closer to 60 km.
I see no point in the Canadian Navy having both the Sea Ceptor and the ESSM. Having said that I am surprised that we know so little about the weapons that will be carried by the Canadian version of the type 26. We don't even know if they will carry the SM2.
The old Iroquois destroyers were equipped with the SM2 but I am beginning to wonder if that means anything. The Canadian navy has been without air defence destroyers for nearly two years and they don't seem to be in any rush to replace that capability. It could be a decade or more until the first of the new type 26 frigates enter service.
Thanks for the responses Todjaeger, ngatimozart, and hauritz. Very interesting indeed. The fact that Sea Ceptor could intercept out to 60 kms is also quite interesting, and makes one wonder if MBDA is aiming to replace ESSM, and not RAM, with the intense marketing blitz here in Canada.
Hauritz, the CSC Draft SOR had the following requirements: Long-range SAM, short-range SAM, and CIADS (see Note1 below).
The definition of CIADS is a bit controversial, from what I can gather, in some instances seeming to differentiate itself from CIWS by being missile based (like RAM and Sea Ceptor), versus gun based (like Phalanx and Millenium). However, I have seen both CIADS and CIWS refer to gun and missile based point defence systems. Perhaps one of the defence experts can chime in on this? So, I'm not entirely sure what the RCN was looking for with this requirement. Presumably it was a point defence capability, not a specific system. In any case, it would appear that the CSC will not have a gun-based point defence system, if the bidders' models are representative. That evidence points towards CSC having RAM or SeaRAM for the CIADS requirement. I've tried to sum up the most likely possibilities below.
CIADS: RAM blk 2 (or Sea Ceptor?)
Short-range SAM: ESSM blk 2 (or Sea Ceptor?)
Long-range SAM: SM-x (SM-2 MR, SM-6, or perhaps both. See Note 2 below.)
Note1: Here is an interesting slide deck, a few years old now (2014), but it outlines the basic requirements for CSC: StackPath
Page 32 is where it shows the air warfare requirements (bottom right quadrant). Some of the information is out of date, but it still paints an interesting picture of the required capabilities. Unfortunately, the final SOR is not available publicly, that I could find, so it is difficult to know how much from the draft is relevant. However, based on what we have seen to date, I believe that the air warfare portion is pretty accurate.
Note2: More information can be gleaned from a cost audit done by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in 2017: http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC Costing/CSC_EN.pdf
Page 15 suggests that missiles under consideration are ESSM, SM2-MR, Harpoon, Tomahawk, and SM-6. Interestingly, RAM was not included in this estimate.
More on the Norman case.
And another one.
Starting to look like Norman did absolutely nothing wrong, and the Liberals are just trying to cover up that they were interfering in the procurement process.
Latest on CSC procurement saga from CBC.
Interesting bit on one of the partners in the CSC T26 bid (MDA): MDA plays waiting game with $60b warship contract
It would seem MDA is responsible for "electronics, antennas, radar, software and system engineering", so know we at least know who is providing the radar (by radar, I'm going to assume this is the air search/targeting radar, and not the navigation radars). The actual radar itself, however, is still a bit of a mystery. Neither MDA nor Maxxar Technologies (who bought MDA a few years ago) has any information on their respective websites linking them to any particular radar manufacturer. MDA certainly has a vast amount of experience with high-power radar systems, having built Canada's Radarsat satellites (currently building 3 more for the Radarsat Constellation, which launch next month). They also appear to have a business associated with naval systems Ship and Naval Electronic Systems, so despite them not having their own naval radar, it would appear they are set up to integrate other vendor's equipment.
I don't know the answer to this; but who represents CEA in Canada - I would presume they do have somebody set up?
Couldn’t find anything other than CEA’s partnership with Navantia and Saab for the CSC bid. As LM Canada has won the bid I am assuming it will be an American radar but little information is available on the radars.
Scott Brison the head of the Treasury Board has announced he will not be running in the 2019 federal election.
Could this be the first of many Liberals who are involved in the Admiral Norman scandal.
We can only hope! Unfortunately the one who really needs to go won’t be leaving in 2019.