• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

I can't disagree. I know we all love the away game here on this forum. We're proud of the histories that the CAF's various services have created in fighting European and Asian wars. Enjoy talking about the cool and interesting kit to go over there and do the business.

But if the CAF focus is on the home game going forward and that's a result of better funding then I'm all in. Defence of Canada is our number one priority, followed by being a good continental ally. And if that means (relatively) boring stuff like big radars, satellites, communications systems, patrol assets, and cyber warriors so be it.
The boring stuff is an absolute necessity to ensure the sexy stuff can work effectively and get somewhere to be used.
 
Some CSC information from CANSEC.

  • Safran is providing the New Generation Dagaie System which launches decoys. They are providing one system per ship two launchers total, one port one starboard fitted above the flex deck space on the ASM deck by the looks of things.

    They can launch the standard IR and RF decoys (chaff and flare), but can also do an Active Offboard Decoy which is an interesting touch. I expect that last one creates emissions that simulate a ship and can pull radar homing missiles away. It's also able to deploy Anti Torp decoys but I expect that the torp decoy system will be dedicated (I believe ULTRA electronics is providing that).

    The Safran vendor told me however the MDA was dealing with the ammunition that it would use, which the MDA vendor didn't know too much about, but that might have been a language barrier (the Safran vendor was very Parisian and between her accented English and my terrible French there might have been a breakdown).

  • Speaking of MDA they are providing quite a bit of stuff. X-band fire control radar, laser warning detector, laser dazzler/defence system (not for people but to counter laser targeting), and the ESM communications suite. I was told that they are also optimizing the antenna for the RAVEN ECM. MDA is also integrating the entire EW suite together, or perhaps they are second fiddle to LMC for that integration work. That was a bit unclear to me.

  • IrvinGQ is providing a floating decoy.

  • Leonardo is going to provide the MARLIN-WS 30mm as the guns for the quarters above the hangar. I'm guessing that they bid both the 30mm and 127mm together beating out BAE for the package.

    What is interesting to me is the three options available either Remote Controled, Coax Camera or Independent Line of Sight. If I had to pick an option it would be ILOS. The fact that the gun can take external targeting information from CMS is very interesting. This opens up the potential of the Xband FC radar giving information to the gun which will then automatically swivel and shoot with the appropriate rounds (dual feed so you can select one of two options).

    The elevation is -19 to +70 and it has airburst munitions which are the best option vs boat swarms and small UAV's/loitiering munitions
 
Some CSC information from CANSEC.

  • Safran is providing the New Generation Dagaie System which launches decoys. They are providing one system per ship two launchers total, one port one starboard fitted above the flex deck space on the ASM deck by the looks of things.

    They can launch the standard IR and RF decoys (chaff and flare), but can also do an Active Offboard Decoy which is an interesting touch. I expect that last one creates emissions that simulate a ship and can pull radar homing missiles away. It's also able to deploy Anti Torp decoys but I expect that the torp decoy system will be dedicated (I believe ULTRA electronics is providing that).

    The Safran vendor told me however the MDA was dealing with the ammunition that it would use, which the MDA vendor didn't know too much about, but that might have been a language barrier (the Safran vendor was very Parisian and between her accented English and my terrible French there might have been a breakdown).

  • Speaking of MDA they are providing quite a bit of stuff. X-band fire control radar, laser warning detector, laser dazzler/defence system (not for people but to counter laser targeting), and the ESM communications suite. I was told that they are also optimizing the antenna for the RAVEN ECM. MDA is also integrating the entire EW suite together, or perhaps they are second fiddle to LMC for that integration work. That was a bit unclear to me.

  • IrvinGQ is providing a floating decoy.

  • Leonardo is going to provide the MARLIN-WS 30mm as the guns for the quarters above the hangar. I'm guessing that they bid both the 30mm and 127mm together beating out BAE for the package.

    What is interesting to me is the three options available either Remote Controled, Coax Camera or Independent Line of Sight. If I had to pick an option it would be ILOS. The fact that the gun can take external targeting information from CMS is very interesting. This opens up the potential of the Xband FC radar giving information to the gun which will then automatically swivel and shoot with the appropriate rounds (dual feed so you can select one of two options).

    The elevation is -19 to +70 and it has airburst munitions which are the best option vs boat swarms and small UAV's/loitiering munitions
The Canadian T26 variant is starting to diverge significantly from its English and Australian cousins...
 
The Canadian T26 variant is starting to diverge significantly from its English and Australian cousins...
It is on the combat system side for sure. Marine systems are still very similar in a lot of cases AFAIK. Personally, I think the bias' of the navies involved is showing. Australia is expecting a missile war with China and UK is making a ship that fits a specific role in their carrier TG. Canada is trying to thread the needle for a true multirole frigate with good AAW and good ASW.
 
…and BMD. 😉
JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS. Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances. Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that? We don't have effectors... :unsure:
 
0pHOv5z.png



 
JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS. Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances. Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that? We don't have effectors... :unsure:
If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?

That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.
 
If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?

That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.
All of the vls launchers will be strike length. So they could fit a SM3 if wanted.
 
If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?

That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.

You've hit the nail on the head. SPY 7 is designed for BMD and Hypersonics. Even if you can't engage the target the US ships in company likely could. Everyone sharing their targeting information reduces that tracking error.

All of the vls launchers will be strike length. So they could fit a SM3 if wanted.
Yep, 24 x Mk41 VLS strike length. Almost every current US ship-launched missile fits in them.
 
You've hit the nail on the head. SPY 7 is designed for BMD and Hypersonics. Even if you can't engage the target the US ships in company likely could. Everyone sharing their targeting information reduces that tracking error.


Yep, 24 x Mk41 VLS strike length. Almost every current US ship-launched missile fits in them.
I know that SPY6 is based on two foot cube phased arrays. How does the SPY7 work In relation to the SPY6?
 
1654644753321.png

How did we miss this? It was out in March. Likely to much Ukraine/Russia fixations. But I'm glad I can talk about a bunch of this stuff now. MTF as I'm researching @MTShaw 's question on SPY 7...
 
I know that SPY6 is based on two foot cube phased arrays. How does the SPY7 work In relation to the SPY6?
Different TRM layout. I understand the SPY-7 is scalable in manufacture, and has provisions for rapid RE&RE for individual TRMs, while the SPy-6’s modules advertise scalability, but I understand the TRMs are not as easily replaceable individually, so the replacement block is a multi-TRM 2ft.sq module. I would note that unless the SPY-6’s inter-module alignment is perfect, there will likely be less coherence across the plane than the 7.

Edit: I’m looking for open source material giving details of the TRM/antenna array difference between 7 and 6. I just remember that what I had seen previously, the RF guy in my had a warm spot for the 7.
 
@MTShaw and @Good2Golf , I think this was posted a long time ago but page 30 of this edition of Canadian Naval Review is pretty good for SPY-7 information.

https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf

The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface. These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).

The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).

Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6). Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.

The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.
 
Thanks @Underway, hadn’t seen that dit before. I’m remembering something else, but it was FOUO and I wanted to be careful about not outing any details improperly. In the end, I think the 7 will be a very capable system, not just for each CSC afloat, but for putting us into serious player space with our cousins south of the 49th.
 
csclmq32021.png
Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 71251
Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.
Oh good it's out. I've had that for months but it was part of an ADM(Mat) presentation and I was lothe to share it outside of the DWAN.

The thing that I think is the highest risk for the project is the CMS 330 and Aegis twinned combat management systems.
 
Thanks @Underway, hadn’t seen that dit before. I’m remembering something else, but it was FOUO and I wanted to be careful about not outing any details improperly. In the end, I think the 7 will be a very capable system, not just for each CSC afloat, but for putting us into serious player space with our cousins south of the 49th.
Here is something I just remembered. It was the only radar system that was fully compliant with the requirements during the bidding process. I don't know what the REQ's were, but that says a lot for the radar. If even CEAFAR didn't meet the REQ's that's one very good system.
 
View attachment 71251
Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.
Small point, but the label in the above infographic for the MK-41 VLS should read "SM-2 Block 3 C", vice "3 B".


 
@MTShaw and @Good2Golf , I think this was posted a long time ago but page 30 of this edition of Canadian Naval Review is pretty good for SPY-7 information.

https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf

The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface. These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).

The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).

Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6). Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.

The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.
Thanks @Underway
 
Back
Top