• 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

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
571
Points
940
Czech_pivo said:
Maybe we should start the 'Go Fund Me' campaign now?
Maybe VAdm Norman will dedicate a portion of the profits from his inevitable book.

I've no doubt that there's a line up of potential publishers, and I know I'd buy a copy... before Paul Gross ruined it with a 'movie adaptation.'  ;D
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
SeaKingTacco said:
Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

SKT - who sez they would buy 15 sets of missiles?  1 set and rotate it to the "duty" ship.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.
 

Attachments

  • RS47749_Type-26-Global-Combat-Ship.jpg
    RS47749_Type-26-Global-Combat-Ship.jpg
    186.4 KB · Views: 283

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
SeaKingTacco said:
Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

Nahhh, just lease them like we do with the Harpoons.  Only buy if you shoot them.

To put it on paper a potential loadout:

12 Tomahawks (in 12 VLS) - land attack
12 SM6 (in 12 VLS) - area air defence, ASuW
32 ESSM II quad packed (in 8 VLS) for point defence and limited consort defence
12 Longbow Hellfires quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for FAC/FIAC defence
12 RAM missiles quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for close in self defence
127mm for its multiple roles
2x30mm for FAC/FIAC defence
8 Naval Strike Missiles for ASuW
Cyclone for ASW

I'm a CPF fan.  A big one.  But this is crazy.  There is no comparison, it's an entirely different ballpark for just the weapons.  The self defence capability in all aspects of future war from a hardkill perspective is just amazing.  And the ability to have offensive strike on an enemy from multiple other systems...  It's going to rewrite the doctrine and attitude of the navy with all that offensive ability.  The swagger will be real.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Lumber said:
Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the latest date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.

I'll start.

I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.

Who's next?

I heard just yesterday of a commission date of "never" because the politician that was at our lunch told me they do not support buying weapons, preferring instead a department of peace.  Although unlikely NDP will form government, they have a decent chance of holding the balance of power in a Liberal-Green-NDP coalition.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Spencer100 said:
I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.

Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars. 

From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.

All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**

I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was the only compliant bid

Solid State Radar

** rough calculations, big assumptions**
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Underway said:
Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars. 

From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.

All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**

I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was the only compliant bid

Solid State Radar

** rough calculations, big assumptions**

Looks like a very similar technology to the CEA radars, at least in terms of scalability through the use of "tiles" or "bricks".  This discusses CEA's first generation CEAFAR as fitted to the RAN ANZACs under the ASMD upgrade: http://www.cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2011-0009.pdf
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Lockheed PPT on some of the CSC requirements.

Some acronym help

CIADS = Close in Air Defence System
TCM = Torpedo Counter Measure
FCL = Fire Control Link?  Link is a guess, but it makes sense if you want to update missile with new information in flight
IRST = Infra Red Search and Track
LFA = low frequency active

Full PPT link here


 

Attachments

  • CSC.PNG
    CSC.PNG
    895.8 KB · Views: 306

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
From behind the paywall:

With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, Jane's understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system.

Full article here:

https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate  :whistle:).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41.
Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament.

Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Cloud Cover said:
The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41.
Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament.

Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.

Surface to surface: Harpoon is on the way out and are also not a Lockheed product so I suspect they won't be part of the package.  NSM is what I think is the quad packed missiles on top of the flex deck.  Also the LRASM is capable of being launched from a Mk41 so that's a possibility as well.

Naval Strike: TLAM is where I think this is going to end up.  Perhaps the JSM.  Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch.  If your targets as that close though wouldn't it be better to use the 127mm?

Secondary gun: gotta be the 30mm's.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
"Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "

Unmanned swarming?
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
Underway said:
From behind the paywall:

Full article here:

https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate  :whistle:).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.

Question re:phalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope?

Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Cloud Cover said:
"Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "

Unmanned swarming?

FAC= Fast Attack Craft
FIAC= Fast Inshore Attack Craft which are essentially speedboats

Swarming for sure, though manned currently.  The best defence against both of these is a Hellfire equipped Helo (which we do not have...yet.... though that is top 10 on the future upgrades for the Cyclone they tell me) as FAC have little AAD and FIAC have only MANPADS options.  After that its Longbows/127mm from the ship, then 30mm, then 50 cal.  Personally FIAC with AT missiles seem a greater challenge.  Longbow can hit them hard beyond or at their own ranges max ranges.  That's one of the reasons they developed them for the LCS. With the 127mm not sure of the accuracy on such a fast moving target, but new ammunition types with IR seeking/GPS guiding etc... would certainly be very useful.  30mm for closer in defence against them and any WBIED threats.

I can certainly see a Longbow loadout in a FAC/FIAC contested combat environment for the ExLS.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Swampbuggy said:
Question re:phalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope?

I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.

Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM. 

Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?

The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
539
Points
990
A standard CIWS has a magazine of about 1580 rounds.  Divided into 60 round bursts, that works out to 26 bursts. 

Fired in 200 rd bursts, that's just 8 bursts.

A RAM carries 21 in its pack, and has longer range.

I think I'd prefer the RAM...

NS
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system.
I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
Cloud Cover said:
Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system.
I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CPTI3ndlA
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Painfully slow! Calm waters on a 90,000 tonne stable base. Can't see that happening on a frigate or destroyer in the middle of a fight!!
 
Top