My thought is that the AAW Variant will have a different weapons loadout in the VLS cells and potentially more cells in total, other than that I could maybe see the radar being scaled up a touch, past that I do not think there will be many other differences.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
My thought is that the AAW Variant will have a different weapons loadout in the VLS cells and potentially more cells in total, other than that I could maybe see the radar being scaled up a touch, past that I do not think there will be many other differences.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I suspect the only difference will be 32 VLS cells on AAW and 24 VLS on ASW/GP. Everything else will be identical.
I suspect that will be the case as well, I am hoping that they do 32 and 48 respectively but I doubt that at this point.
Belesarius
New Member
So any news from CANSEC? Anyone from here manage to get to go?
Just got back. I will post more details later tonight, but I can say that I visited BAE, LM Canada, and Irving, and they each had a CSC model that was slightly different. I will post pics later, but suffice it to say that there was one model with 24 Mk 41 cells, and the other two had 32. All 3 models had the 6 ExLS cells, however, so that seems to be a fairly certain feature. One model still had Phalanx, and all three had different radar panels. So, for those of us looking for more certainty on the CSC configuration, I think we will have to wait a bit longer. The Irving rep indicated that they were still in discussions with the "customer" for the final configuration. No one from LM, BAE, or Irving would comment on if there was a separate AAW and GP variant. The only thing I could confirm absolutely is that LM will be supplying the S-band search radar, and that it is a derivative of the LRDR. No one seemed to know anything about the X-band radar. It was, frankly, a bit disappointing.
The show itself was great. Lots of cool kit, and I got some great pictures of the Cyclone on static display, including some interior shots. Also (@John Fedup will be excited), there was a Millenium gun on display, which is something I was quite interested to see up close. It's really surprisingly compact.
Last edited:
Belesarius
New Member
Thanks for the update!
It does sound pretty disappointing, hopefully the "customer" figures their requirements out...
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
New article from Janes on CSC
My take is that we may not know the final configuration for a long time yet. "...the Canadian government and Irving Shipbuilding are now working with Lockheed Martin Canada ... to customise the GCS ship design to meet RCN requirements .... The design phase - ... - is expected to take three to four years to complete."
I don't think it will take 3 to 4 years to fix the configuration, but I could easily see it taking a year.
My take is that we may not know the final configuration for a long time yet. "...the Canadian government and Irving Shipbuilding are now working with Lockheed Martin Canada ... to customise the GCS ship design to meet RCN requirements .... The design phase - ... - is expected to take three to four years to complete."
I don't think it will take 3 to 4 years to fix the configuration, but I could easily see it taking a year.
Hmmm....
Type 26 platform - I believe that the programme in the UK (Under the title Future Surface Combatant) has been running since around 2009.(IIRC - the whole C1 to C3 - 3 variants of vessel was probably announced by the UK govt as far back as 1999 / 2000 !)
Type 45 - Ran as 'Project Horizion' (when it was a pan-European project) from the late 1980's thru until mid to late 1990's, then the UK pulled out & Type 45 started life.
3 to 4 years is therefore a 'good' place to start on the timescale, as there will be many reconfigurations as one change can often cascade, requiring other changes to take place / move bulkheads, etc., so it will probably take that long for the Canadian customer to agree that they have things the way they want them.
CSC will be a different beast from Type 26 - The trio of influence you posted above will look to make changes to suit specific equipment & specific customer needs, so while it is based on the hull form, there will be some subtle & some not so subtle changes. (a bit like the way GM cars in Europe have a different badge & name from the ones in the US / Australia / USA, but are all based off of the same shell).
Here are some pics of the BAE CSC model from CANSEC 2019.
Notables are 32 Mk41 cells, Harpoon, ExLS, unique new mast above the radar panels, and the odd looking panel-within-a-panel radar that we've seen before.
Notables are 32 Mk41 cells, Harpoon, ExLS, unique new mast above the radar panels, and the odd looking panel-within-a-panel radar that we've seen before.
Attachments
And finally, the LM Canada model.
Virtually identical to the BAE model. There may be subtle differences in the features on the mast, but hard to tell.
All three were different from the one shown at Sea-Air-Space 2019, which had the LM S-band radar and the so far unknown X-band radar on the superstructure, another different mast configuration, as well as the square ASuW cannisters.
Virtually identical to the BAE model. There may be subtle differences in the features on the mast, but hard to tell.
All three were different from the one shown at Sea-Air-Space 2019, which had the LM S-band radar and the so far unknown X-band radar on the superstructure, another different mast configuration, as well as the square ASuW cannisters.
Attachments
Last edited:
Maybe there is someone more qualified than myself here, but that does not look like a Phalanx or SeaRam, looks sort of like some sort of Laser CIWS system, like the LAWS and Phalanx had a baby.
This one if for @John Fedup. Millennium gun. Not the system - just the gun. Impressively compact.
Its presence here was surprising, given the target audience of CANSEC is Canadian Military procurement. Possible future purchase?
Its presence here was surprising, given the target audience of CANSEC is Canadian Military procurement. Possible future purchase?
Attachments
![IMG_20190529_102205[2438].jpg](/military/data/attachments/46/46616-f2d83a7887aeb9f35e072d15ea477a26.jpg?hash=8tg6eIeuuf)
![IMG_20190529_102257[2439].jpg](/military/data/attachments/46/46617-2e56b54d6da2bc54f42bb68fbb3151f7.jpg?hash=Lla1TW2ivF)
![IMG_20190529_102320[2437].jpg](/military/data/attachments/46/46618-60cd6859a50d4448c4d6938e515be492.jpg?hash=YM1oWaUNRE)
The Australian design is by no means completely settled yet despite an earlier decision and even though the major components of the combat system have been known for some time, so it's probably not surprising that the Canadian version is still a bit up in the air. Given that the head contract is with LM, and that BAE are the designers, and that their models are very similar, it would seem likely to be closer to the final product than the Irving one, merely because of the time it takes to transfer designs between parties.
Submarines, while not as high profile, were nonetheless on display at CANSEC. Not much information on the Victoria class planned upgrade/overhaul, though Babcock Canada was represented, but one interesting exhibit was from Naval Group, who were marketing Barracuda, with nuclear propulsion. I've attached a photo.
Attachments
Here are the photos I took of the Cyclone on static display. I'll probably post this over in the Canadian Air Force thread as well, but seeing as how this is a naval helicopter, I thought I'd post here first.
This is an impressive platform, with top-end ISR and ASW capabilities. I spoke to the flight crew for a while, and they were all quite hyped about this helicopter. The pilots said it had "gobs" of power, and was extremely stable. You could really sense their enthusiasm. It is surprisingly spacious inside, with lots of headroom and space to move around the operator consoles.
This is an impressive platform, with top-end ISR and ASW capabilities. I spoke to the flight crew for a while, and they were all quite hyped about this helicopter. The pilots said it had "gobs" of power, and was extremely stable. You could really sense their enthusiasm. It is surprisingly spacious inside, with lots of headroom and space to move around the operator consoles.
Attachments
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Interesting that Naval Group would show this. While nuclear subs would currently be the best option for the RCN and would benefit Ontario's nuclear industry, I doubt either political party would have the balls to consider this short of some significant threat to our Arctic sovereignty. The French nuclear option is the only choice as neither the Americans or the British have the capacity (at this time) to export subs assuming they were inclined to do so. The future Australian sub project or possibly a Japanese sub are likely the best non-nuclear options and hopefully their is a future RCN submarine fleet with 6-8 boats and perhaps more if future missile developments make surface vessels less viable.
BTW @Calculus , thank you for all the CANSEC info, especially the Millenium photos!
No problem at all.BTW @Calculus , thank you for all the CANSEC info, especially the Millenium photos!
