• 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

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
76
Points
560
This gov't website still says this, very optimistic I think:

...
Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)

    Completed Start Options Analysis
    Completed Start Definition
    2021/2022 Start Implementation
    2026/2027 Initial Delivery
...
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1710

Mark
Ottawa
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Underway said:
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"...

1 - Correct
2 - Australia actually mandated the combat system and weapons fit out, so the competition was really only for the hull and propulsion system.
3 - It will be interesting to see who actually commissions a ship first.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
RDBZ said:
1 - Correct
2 - Australia actually mandated the combat system and weapons fit out, so the competition was really only for the hull and propulsion system.
3 - It will be interesting to see who actually commissions a ship first.

IT'S A RACE!  :)

I'm putting my money on BAE (ASC) any taker for a $20?  or a case of Beer :) (If I'm still alive)
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
And, the same month, the MOD revealed the Frigates would be armed with a new laser beam weapon that destroys drones and missiles and doesn't need ammunition.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/new-royal-navy-warships-amazing-3456491
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
No no.  The lasers go onto the sharks that are carried in the flex deck aquarium.  Then the sharks are launched at the enemy down a waterslide. 
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
However, it strikes me that Canada’s procurement approach to the development and execution of the RfP for CSC seemed much more complex and thus work-intensive for all concerned when compared to the RfT for Australia’s Future Frigate Program. This reflects an expensive way of doing business for Canada and for bidders that consumes immeasurable person-years of effort.
https://www.cgai.ca/another_way_to_buy_frigates#So
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,806
Points
940
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.

It would also be nice to have a missile that is even 75% effective at half the price, so the navies could actually afford some war stock.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
US designates Lockheed Martin Solid State Radar AN/SPY-7(V)1

The US Government has designated Lockheed Martin’s advanced solid-state radar technology as AN/SPY-7(V)1.

Lockheed Martin noted that AN/SPY-7(V)1 is the world’s latest generation solid-state radar technology.

The radar was previously known as Lockheed Martin’s Solid State Radar (LM SSR).

Japan chose the LM SSR to support its Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defence batteries in July last year.

The radar and Aegis Ashore will protect Japan from ballistic missile threats.

Spain and Canada also selected the latest generation radar. The solid state radar will equip the Royal Canadian Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant programme and the Spanish Navy’s F-110 frigates.

Lockheed Martin vice-president and general manager Paul Lemmo said: “Lockheed Martin’s solid state solution meets the mission now and is flexible to adapt to the evolving threats of the future.

“This new designation solidifies our ability to provide the most technically advanced capabilities our warfighters require.”

The company’s AN/SPY-7(V)1 radar is a modular and scalable solution that will enable continuous surveillance.

The system will be fully integrated with Lockheed Martin’s Aegis maritime ballistic missile defence system to offer protection for future ship classes.

In January last year, the company demonstrated the capability to connect components of the Aegis Ashore and Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) technologies.

The integration of the systems will improve situational awareness and provide earlier intelligence to the warfighter.

Aegis Ashore is the land-based version of the navy’s Aegis Weapons System.

The company’s solid state radar is a scalable radar building block based on gallium nitride (GaN) technology.
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-designates-lockheed-martin-solid-state-radar-an-spy-7v1/
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
I was just going to post that @Uzlu.  Now that we have an official name for the radar the information should be flowing a bit faster.

SPY 7 and SPY 6 seem to have similar design philosophies with the scalable modular portion an important part of the design.  Interestingly the SPY 7 was designed for very high availability rates.  Much less down time and maint then similar radars.  With many modern phased arrays when you lose a transceiver you lose that entire face of the radar, giving you a blind spot and/or a degraded picture (tracking is harder or you might lose a reference beam etc...). Repair requires shutting down the radar.  Losing a transceiver on a SPY 7 is a repair while the radar is operating underway.  You pull the duff one out and replace it, with only isolating the power to that particular spot. As you do this from the back of the radar it means no radiation issues.

I love the scalability aspect of it as well.  Future proofing and modification for mission.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,789
Points
1,160
With many modern phased arrays when you lose a transceiver you lose that entire face of the radar...

Do you mean failure of an individual T/R module? 

I’d be very interested to hear which AESA radar manufacturers build in complete catastrophic failure instead of graceful degradation?  Redundancy is one of the core benefits of AESA. Sure, the RP fails, no radar...but one TRM taking the whole thing down...  #skeptical

Regards
G2G
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
539
Points
990
As a SONAR guy...I understand the concept of phased sensor arrays...that is a perfect description of how a SONAR dome with 36 staves (each covering 10 degrees), each stave having 10 Single Element Transducers in it works...losing an SET from a stave can cause the loss of that stave, depending on the failure mode.  Bypassing the SET is a straightforward process though which can bring that stave back online with 9/10 SETs functional...but here's the thing, during the period that the stave is down, there is still sound reception and coverage by the Staves on each side, and there is still an ability to localize targets on the 10 degree stave that's impacted...it's degraded, but still can be done.

I cannot imagine a RADAR system having a whole panel fall off-line for the loss of a single transceiver.  That makes....little sense to me as a technician and sounds like a problem that early generations of phased array systems may have encountered...but newer versions?  I have trouble believing it.

NS
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
Good2Golf said:
Do you mean failure of an individual T/R module? 

I’d be very interested to hear which AESA radar manufacturers build in complete catastrophic failure instead of graceful degradation?  Redundancy is one of the core benefits of AESA. Sure, the RP fails, no radar...but one TRM taking the whole thing down...  #skeptical

Regards
G2G

I was being intentionally vague as I wasn't sure where the OPSEC line was.  But yes you are correct as far as I know it.  There are single points of failure in many phased arrays, however the SPY-7 is designed to avoid this.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
More ships similar to the surface combatants?
The Type 4X Destroyer – An early look at an early concept

The Type 4X, the Type 45 Destroyer replacement, is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate is officially being considered for the job.

The UK Defence Journal has been speaking to Paul Sweeney, MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we’ve been told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that will function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme is currently referred to as as T4X.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-type-4x-destroyer-an-early-look-at-an-early-concept/?fbclid=IwAR3t0s90YX-OgP3hiGt3RVQlkw0rX_FHSLO-U06Tzazp8B5ajPFH12b7yws
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
RUMINT: All thirty two Mk41 VLS will be strike length.  There will be 24 CAMM midships (where the UK are putting theirs) for the Close In Air Defence requirement (I assume launched from the 6 ExLS launchers, quad packed).  There will be 8 NSM just aft of that. 

I was told the RCN was not interested in a gun based missile defence system so there will be no CIWS option.  The CIAD requirement was met by the CAMM.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
RUMINT: All thirty two Mk41 VLS will be strike length.  There will be 24 CAMM midships (where the UK are putting theirs) for the Close In Air Defence requirement (I assume launched from the 6 ExLS launchers, quad packed).  There will be 8 NSM just aft of that. 

I was told the RCN was not interested in a gun based missile defence system so there will be no CIWS option.  The CIAD requirement was met by the CAMM.

I foresee the return of the Standard Missiles(SM-2 or SM-6. Probably not SM-3).  The no Phalanx option feels like a bad idea (reaction time, minimum engagement range, etc).  Perhaps get SeaRAM(Phalanx with RAM missiles) instead of Phalanx for CIWS.  Are they planning on having some smaller calibre guns outside of the 5 inch (ala Mk 38 Bushmaster or DS30)?  I know it is slightly different, but the RN Type 26 has TWO Phalanx's CIWS on the render drawing.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Speaking of CIWS, been noticing half the mockups and promotional images either have Phalanx, SEARAM, or nothing.

Reading up about the RN's 40MM option on the Type 31, seems like it could be a good option. Plus...broadsides...
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM. 

Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
Spencer100 said:
So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM. 

Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"

SM for long range, ESSM for intermediate and CAMM for close in. Better than a PHALANX with less chance of self damage.
 
Top