Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Good2Golf]

It would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s variant (v)3 is as capable as Spains (v)2 since ours has the smallest arrays.

So you’re saying aperture size is always the controlling factor in radar?

 

[KevinB]

The pessimist in me says I wouldn’t read too much into what a Lockheed manager says. It would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s variant (v)3 is as capable as Spains (v)2 since ours has the smallest arrays.
Lockheeds literature gives some clues:
Japan:…the persistent missile defense system ….allows for continuous protection of Japan. Sounds awesome.
Spain: …will go to sea in 2026 …to defend Spain’s warfighters from the latest anti-air warfare threats. Sounds like what we need.
Canada: …radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions. Sounds like Topshee describing DeWolfe

I would suggest that very few in the RCN at this point with the government you have want to openly discuss ABM roles.

It is an ABM capable system, whether y’all want to openly use that is irrelevant.

Now if you get ABM Missiles that’s another thing… Fitted for not with ?

 

[Nvlgzr]

So you’re saying aperture size is always the controlling factor in radar?

No, it is one of many such as power, location, cycles, technology (gallium nitridesj . But if in this case I assume identical modules are used ,I would expect resolution to change and/or number of tracks.

 

[Good2Golf]

No, it is one of many such as power, location, cycles, technology (gallium nitridesj .

But you said:

It would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s variant (v)3 is as capable as Spains (v)2 since ours has the smallest arrays.

You didn’t mention any other factor in radar design, you said it would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s (V)3 to be as capable as Spain’s (V)2 because of the array size. You didn’t even try to compare any other factors performance ratios relative to array size ratio between the two.

What is presumptuous is to sweepingly imply that the Canadian radar would be less capable than the Spanish variant, on a single factor. No assessment of TRM design comparison, s/w design, EIRP, etc. just array size.

But if in this case I assume identical modules are used ,I would expect resolution to change and/or number of tracks.

…you’re assuming (V)2 TRMs will be identical to (V)3 TRMs? Really?

 

[Nvlgzr]

But you said:

You didn’t mention any other factor in radar design, you said it would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s (V)3 to be as capable as Spain’s (V)2 because of the array size. You didn’t even try to compare any other factors performance ratios relative to array size ratio between the two.

What is presumptuous is to sweepingly imply that the Canadian radar would be less capable than the Spanish variant, on a single factor. No assessment of TRM design comparison, s/w design, EIRP, etc. just array size.



…you’re assuming (V)2 TRMs will be identical to (V)3 TRMs? Really?

Yes.I’m am assuming same upon my vague recollection of a Lockheed advert from about 6 years ago that illustrated such. I believe Raytheon was claiming similar for Spy-6.

 

[Underway]

The pessimist in me says I wouldn’t read too much into what a Lockheed manager says. It would be presumptuous to expect Canada’s variant (v)3 is as capable as Spains (v)2 since ours has the smallest arrays.
Lockheeds literature gives some clues:
Japan:…the persistent missile defense system ….allows for continuous protection of Japan. Sounds awesome.
Spain: …will go to sea in 2026 …to defend Spain’s warfighters from the latest anti-air warfare threats. Sounds like what we need.
Canada: …radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions. Sounds like Topshee describing DeWolfe

V(3) it's a different fit, not a different radar. And as far as smallest array I don't think we have that information yet, but it doesn't necessarily matter. Placement is just as, if not more important. As well as G2G's various parameters. The CSC one has a high placement on the mast, increasing the radar horizon quite a bit, which is extremely important.

 

[Underway]

I would suggest that very few in the RCN at this point with the government you have want to openly discuss ABM roles.

It is an ABM capable system, whether y’all want to openly use that is irrelevant.

Now if you get ABM Missiles that’s another thing… Fitted for not with ?

Aegis with the SPY radar. All that would be needed would be to upload the BMD package to Aegis (software) and purchase SM3's (the interceptors). Sprinkle with training and bake at 350 for two weeks and its ready to go. It's a short distance from initial fit to BMD should that be needed or wanted.