• 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

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.

Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.

I suppose.  Both missiles have similar specs (all be it different max/min range) it seems odd to me to have both.  I know Sea Ceptor will work with Mk 41 VLS.  I sure hope we will deploying SM-2's again.  That was a big loss when the 280's were decommissioned.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
There is also an extended range version of the CAMM >45km.

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
AlexanderM said:
There is also an extended range version of the CAMM >45km.

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/

I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER. 

SeaKingTacco said:
Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.

There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
Thumper81 said:
I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER. 

There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.

That is very interesting.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,457
Points
940
SeaKingTacco said:
Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.

I understand that the US Army is being tagged to defend forward naval bases with missiles units, although I not sure if anything solid has come out of that?
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Thumper81 said:
I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER. 
I wasn't suggesting it would be a replacement for the SM-2 just mentioning that there is an extended range CAMM. The ESSM is faster, so at range it gets out there quicker, which I would imagine is advantageous. I also thought someone said the SM-2 is being discontinued, or was that not accurate? It was a while ago now that someone said that.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
AlexanderM said:
I wasn't suggesting it would be a replacement for the SM-2 just mentioning that there is an extended range CAMM. The ESSM is faster, so at range it gets out there quicker, which I would imagine is advantageous. I also thought someone said the SM-2 is being discontinued, or was that not accurate? It was a while ago now that someone said that.

SM-2 keeps on rolling mainly due to cost it seems.  SM-2 are about $1 mil, SM-6 are $5mil and SM-3 are between $9 - $25 mil.  However as is the case with the US evolutionary design concepts the SM-2 is no longer the RIM-67, its the RIM-156A (or RIM-67E). Also known as the  SM-2ER Block IV.  They are still manufactured.  Other older versions of the SM-2 have been discontinued.  There is some info regarding SM-2ER Block III still out there but AFAIK they are no new ones being manufactured, just refurbishment of the older ones.

SM-2 is still quite good against the vast majority of threats out there, but SM-6 has the ability to deal with the newest threats more effectively at longer ranges.
Thumper81 said:
There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.

The whole development program was fascinating to watch.  The UK has a large interest in keeping their domestic missile development programs going.  Leads to innovative and effective missiles, like the Brimstone, CAMM and Meteor.  CAMM design has many advantages which were implemented because of the focus of multi element use.  The cold start for one is important for land launch as it doesn't give away your position as easily and protects the launch site from rocket exhaust.  The close minimum range is also army centric as detection of aircraft might be very close range due to terrain.  For true task group defence the RN went to the Aster missile family for good reasons, but for point defence there is nothing wrong with the relatively inexpensive CAMM.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
Chris Pook said:
Conveniently that decision keeps both Brussels and Washington happy and addresses the European concern about the adoption of the ESSM system for the Halifax upgrade knocking European suppliers out of future competitions.

Not militarily significant but significant politically when managing alliances.

I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Underway said:
I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.

That's a pretty neat piece of info... I would have guessed that, like most things (Standard, Mk46, Mk54) the US would take the lead.  I read the history of the ESSM... it's cool that in some ways it's "Canada's missile."
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.

Hopefully they upgrade the CWI to Mod 5 to fully support Block 2 for the current frigates.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
Baz said:
That's a pretty neat piece of info... I would have guessed that, like most things (Standard, Mk46, Mk54) the US would take the lead.  I read the history of the ESSM... it's cool that in some ways it's "Canada's missile."
It is cool.  I was quite surprised when I found out about the data/testing contribution being so high.  The US is paying for most for the program in budgetary terms.  We contribute as much as possible in other ways.. 

Thumper81 said:
Hopefully they upgrade the CWI to Mod 5 to fully support Block 2 for the current frigates.

Less need for a CWI for the Block 2.  It will have an active homing capability.  So you could potentially get a kill without using the CWI at all.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
It is cool.  I was quite surprised when I found out about the data/testing contribution being so high.  The US is paying for most for the program in budgetary terms.  We contribute as much as possible in other ways.. 

Less need for a CWI for the Block 2.  It will have an active homing capability.  So you could potentially get a kill without using the CWI at all.

I know that it is active homing, but can do semi-active as well.  The reason it can do both is because of ECM systems.  A lot harder to jam a CWI.  It's an RF hose.  You would need REALLY powerful ECM to jam it. 
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
Thumper81 said:
I know that it is active homing, but can do semi-active as well.  The reason it can do both is because of ECM systems.  A lot harder to jam a CWI.  It's an RF hose.  You would need REALLY powerful ECM to jam it.

This would be an excellent time to remind everyone of OPSEC before anyone else posts.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
SeaKingTacco said:
This would be an excellent time to remind everyone of OPSEC before anyone else posts.

Fair point.  Nothing OPSEC in what I said.  What it does is in the acronym.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
Thumper81 said:
Fair point.  Nothing OPSEC in what I said.  What it does is in the acronym.

I am well aware of that. I am just pointing out to everyone that going much further down this discussion branch is going to be problematic.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
78
Points
280
First delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatants is the mid 2020s.  This appears to be a lot earlier than first delivery of the Hunter-class frigates.
The program calls for steel to be cut on the first vessel in Osborne in late 2022 with the lead ship, HMAS Flinders, launched in the 2027-2028 timeframe and entering service between 2029 and 2031.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/a-quiet-hunter-navy-s-future-frigate
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
Well there are three reasons that might be IMHO.

1) Our shipyard is already built. Australia is building/expanding one.
2) Our project is oddly enough further ahead of theirs.  We had more definition than they did when they accepted a winning bid and are still working out much of the details on capability.  This front end work helps quite a bit when the back end stuff starts.
3) That number is complete BS and means absolutely nothing.  2027 is actually "mid 2020's"...
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
61
Points
560
Uzlu:

First delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatants is the mid 2020s
.

No way. Here is schedule for RCN's A/OPS, and then two to be built by Irving for CCG; will be lucky to get first CSC much before 2030:

...
Ship 6 delivery: 2024
...
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
78
Points
280
MarkOttawa said:
No way. Here is schedule for RCN's A/OPS, and then two to be built by Irving for CCG; will be lucky to get first CSC much before 2030
Well, I think it might be at least theoretically possible for the first surface combatant to be delivered in the mid 2020s if we allow 2027 to be included as a part of the mid 2020s:

Arctic and offshore patrol ship 6 delivery: 2024
Arctic and offshore patrol ship 7 delivery: 2025
Arctic and offshore patrol ship 8 delivery: 2026
Surface combatant 1 delivery: 2027

I, however, do agree with you that delivery of the first surface combatant in the mid 2020s might be optimistic.
 
Top