Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Rainbow1910]

Wikipedia is my 'friend' sometimes.

40mm L/70 mount - 2400Kg, or 4800Kg gun and Field Carriage.

I have found another site (navweaps.com) that indicates that it's 2870 Kg for the 1958 SAK Naval mounting.

Sweden 40 mm/70 (1.57") Model 1948, SAK 315, SAK 350, SAK 520, Model 1958, Sea Trinity, Mark 3 and Mark 4 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Yes, the issue is that the MCDV's used the "Boffin" Mark VC mounting, which was a powered twin 20mm Oerlikon mounting from WWII that was converted over to use a single 40mm L/60 gun. Relatively obscure system that I have been unable to pin down a weight figure for. That being said, the weight margin for the MCDVs might already have been used up on something else at this point. With the RCN not moving forward with even a .50 cal RWS for the MCDV's, it seems like a 30mm gun would be even lower priority.

 

[Barnold]

The latest edition of the Maritime Engineering Journal has a great article about Aegis and the CSC, detailing various sensors and weapons, and how they'll be integrated into a coherent combat system.

The article includes an illustration of the ship that I hadn't seen before, and left me wondering if the design had evolved again.

Today, I stumbled across this image on BAE Systems website that looks very similar.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The latest edition of the Maritime Engineering Journal has a great article about Aegis and the CSC, detailing various sensors and weapons, and how they'll be integrated into a coherent combat system.

The article includes an illustration of the ship that I hadn't seen before, and left me wondering if the design had evolved again.

Today, I stumbled across this image on BAE Systems website that looks very similar.

Thanks, can some MARE/CSE (I know, I know - old-speak) type people tell us landlubbers what we are seeing, please?

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks, can some MARE/CSE (I know, I know - old-speak) type people tell us landlubbers what we are seeing, please?

Boat…and boat in ghost-mode?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The ship on the left is the actual frigate, the blue one on the right is how it would look to your enemy's sensors ... a ghost.

Just kidding: No idea what they are trying to prove with that picture.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think the T26 model shown is an older rev of the design, but a lot of variations and artist renditions, so I wouldn't really take anything from it..

Not sure what the ghost ship is, but they are big on the idea of 'digital twin'. I guess it sounds sexier than 'paper ship' but basically have a 3D model that in theory duplicates the build plan, but can also roll up the material selection items, part numbers etc. It's cute from the in service side to think that will be maintained in any kind of accurate way after the ship was delivered, especially seeing how big of a deviation AOPs has from it's 3D models, but still awesome for the build phase.

That 'twinning' will last until they cut steel (for real) but is actually super useful for trying to table top things where you can look inside the actual ship and see in the model what is where.

It looks really big until you see the corridors with all the panels, lockers etc inside. Really useful though for doing things like 'if I get hit here by munitions X, so what?'. Bit of brute force, but they can quickly run models that shows the likelihood of things like internal non-watertight structures, piping, cabling etc etc getting damaged by a blast or shock, and knowing what cables run where you can figure out what vulnerabilities you might have. With computers you can do that for basically any point on the hull and superstructure with whatever kind of scenario you can manage.

On one hand, it's a great way to figure out what kind of damage you might get, on the other hand the old rules of thumb for combatant ship design redundancy doesn't seem to be much different. I guess this way you can show why the common sense of running two redundant cable ways on port and starboard makes sense, and why being able to split a piping system into independent sections also makes sense. That's usually less frustrating than arguing with idiots who know better because they watched something on Youtube, or heard someone talk about it one time.

Kind of funny how that's the article people gravitate too, and not the things on fire one.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The latest edition of the Maritime Engineering Journal has a great article about Aegis and the CSC, detailing various sensors and weapons, and how they'll be integrated into a coherent combat system.

The article includes an illustration of the ship that I hadn't seen before, and left me wondering if the design had evolved again.

MEJ is as excellent as always, that article specifically looks to be one of the most detailed looks at the various pieces of equipment integrated into the CSC that we have seen in public thus far. I will quote some interesting information from the article for users here:

The CSC successfully exited Preliminary Design Review in December 2022, and is currently progressing through the Functional Design phase that is anticipated to complete by mid-2024. Initial operating capability for the CSC is projected for the early 2030s, supported by a construction program aligned with this timeline.

This is likely why we are seeing such a detailed explanation of onboard systems and equipment integration shared to the public, the design is progressing well through the functional design phase and likely becoming fairly final.

To achieve this array of operations, CSC will integrate Aegis as the centerpiece of the combat system. To accommodate non-USN equipment, Aegis is complemented by the Canadian Tactical Interface (CTI), permitting Canada the flexibility to select any major combat system element globally and integrate it into CSC and Aegis. Several non-US systems being integrated into the Canadian Surface Combatant are absent in the Common Source Library utilized by the US Navy, and require integration into the Aegis Combat System through the Canadian Tactical Interface (CTI). While loosely based on CMS-330, CTI acts as an interface to ensure a coherent combat system. Besides the interface function, CTI assumes the role of the underwater warfare C2 system, reporting tracks to Aegis, and executing Aegis commands from the operations team.

On a fairly basic level, AEGIS is effectively the brains of the vessel and manages everything from threat tracking, weapons cueing, engagement, and much, much more. Any systems present that are not already integrated into AEGIS by the US Navy or other users, will be integrated through an evolved version of CMS-330 found on current RCN ships called the Canadian Tactical Interface (CTI). These two systems interface together to bring all of the combat systems of the ship into a coherent form.



Above is a handy chart from the article showing all of the systems integrated into the CSC, how they are being procured and how they are integrated. Some standouts are the adoption of the Nulka decoy system, an excellent piece of kit previously used on the Iroquois class but never carried forward to the CPF's. Tomahawk has been specifically named for the first time in quite sometime, the recently announced Lionfish 30mm gun systems make an appearance alongside the AN/SLQ-32(V)6 Block 2 ESM being integrated as well. CSC is looking to have quite a potent suite of decoys and electronic countermeasures aboard between this and previously released information.

Kind of funny how that's the article people gravitate too, and not the things on fire one.

I'd expect that article might be far more immediately enticing to people actively serving and with a vested interest in the topic. Enthusiasts won't find much interest in passive thermal barriers, bulkhead temperature sensor testing and IMO design requirements on a good day, let alone when it is placed alongside a big fancy article regarding the CSC with 'new' public renders.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think the T26 model shown is an older rev of the design, but a lot of variations and artist renditions, so I wouldn't really take anything from it..

Not sure what the ghost ship is, but they are big on the idea of 'digital twin'. I guess it sounds sexier than 'paper ship' but basically have a 3D model that in theory duplicates the build plan, but can also roll up the material selection items, part numbers etc. It's cute from the in service side to think that will be maintained in any kind of accurate way after the ship was delivered, especially seeing how big of a deviation AOPs has from it's 3D models, but still awesome for the build phase.

That 'twinning' will last until they cut steel (for real) but is actually super useful for trying to table top things where you can look inside the actual ship and see in the model what is where.

It looks really big until you see the corridors with all the panels, lockers etc inside. Really useful though for doing things like 'if I get hit here by munitions X, so what?'. Bit of brute force, but they can quickly run models that shows the likelihood of things like internal non-watertight structures, piping, cabling etc etc getting damaged by a blast or shock, and knowing what cables run where you can figure out what vulnerabilities you might have. With computers you can do that for basically any point on the hull and superstructure with whatever kind of scenario you can manage.

On one hand, it's a great way to figure out what kind of damage you might get, on the other hand the old rules of thumb for combatant ship design redundancy doesn't seem to be much different. I guess this way you can show why the common sense of running two redundant cable ways on port and starboard makes sense, and why being able to split a piping system into independent sections also makes sense. That's usually less frustrating than arguing with idiots who know better because they watched something on Youtube, or heard someone talk about it one time.

Kind of funny how that's the article people gravitate too, and not the things on fire one.

Hey! I read the “things on fire” article!

Well done!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hey! I read the “things on fire” article!

Well done!

Mind you, I have more than my fair share of “life threatening, shipboard fires” in my CV, so there is that…

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'd expect that article might be far more immediately enticing to people actively serving and with a vested interest in the topic. Enthusiasts won't find much interest in passive thermal barriers, bulkhead temperature sensor testing and IMO design requirements on a good day, let alone when it is placed alongside a big fancy article regarding the CSC with 'new' public renders.

Less for enthusiasts, more for folks that run up on a cold door while responding to a fire alarm, chuck it open, and get an 'o shit' moment when there is actually a fire right there. The fire responses happen a few times every month, and that's a big change from decades of plain steel doors and hatches, where you could reasonably expect a door to be warm if there was a fire on the other side about a half stride in.

To be fair, the videos of things on fire and things adjacent to it are a bit more eye catching, and the follow on testing with painted surfaces where paint is smoking on the opposite side with no insulation and cold to touch with insulation should help as well.

Pretty common sense, but this way there is no arguements or what ifs.

It's on the Orcas, AOPs, and coming with JSS and CSC so the new norm, but not much awareness of it within the RCN or in any of the marine trianing for land based FFs either. Works a treat though!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Mind you, I have more than my fair share of “life threatening, shipboard fires” in my CV, so there is that…

Sadly, me too; realized I was an outlier when talking to peers when I start losing track of which fire on which class I was on when we were talking about some emergencies we had been around for. Fortunately they all got handled fairly quickly, but amazing how long it takes to clean up, clear up the smoke and gas free after a the actual fire was out in 10-15 minutes or less. Couple no duff EFS (again, for alarms, with no crash thank god), small floods, and a lot of near misses so doesn't seem to take much to tip from a pucker factor story to a BOI. As far as I can tell, it's usually a lot of little things at once instead of one big thing 99% of the time.

Anyway, big fan of built in improvements, so now we just need to change our tactics and training to take advantage of it a bit.

 

[NavyShooter]

Fire is real....and I think in my time at sea, practically every ship I sailed on had at least one real fire onboard....from a DG that 'blew up' on CHA the morning we sailed for WUPS in 00, MON with a deflagrating ROD unit, the oily rag waste bin outside the torpedo mag, the helo 'chip detect' in the gearbox that got more interesting as they landed (smoke in the cockpit in a helo is stressful apparently...) and many more little ones. Getting wet stuff on the hot stuff quickly is important. I think the detection and suppression systems are important....I think the uniforms are important too, and I'm concerned that the multi-layer protection of the 'old style' NCDs might be something that should not have been discarded.

 

[suffolkowner]

Less for enthusiasts, more for folks that run up on a cold door while responding to a fire alarm, chuck it open, and get an 'o shit' moment when there is actually a fire right there. The fire responses happen a few times every month, and that's a big change from decades of plain steel doors and hatches, where you could reasonably expect a door to be warm if there was a fire on the other side about a half stride in.

To be fair, the videos of things on fire and things adjacent to it are a bit more eye catching, and the follow on testing with painted surfaces where paint is smoking on the opposite side with no insulation and cold to touch with insulation should help as well.

Pretty common sense, but this way there is no arguements or what ifs.

It's on the Orcas, AOPs, and coming with JSS and CSC so the new norm, but not much awareness of it within the RCN or in any of the marine trianing for land based FFs either. Works a treat though!

What is the insulation used? Do you experiment with fire coatings?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

NavyShooter, are you saying the new NCD doesn't come with a requirement for a cotton t-shirt/underwear underlayer and doesn't have a jacket or wool sweater to go on top of the shirt?

If so then: Wow! Just Wow!

We had to fight for almost 20 years after unification to get shipboard clothing that protected us instead of polyester crap that melted to our skin and they would now have rejected one of the easiest and most fundamental way of protecting yourself from fire / flash. I can hardly believe that.

 

[dimsum]

NavyShooter, are you saying the new NCD doesn't come with a requirement for a cotton t-shirt/underwear underlayer and doesn't have a jacket or wool sweater to go on top of the shirt?

If so then: Wow! Just Wow!

We had to fight for almost 20 years after unification to get shipboard clothing that protected us instead of polyester crap that melted to our skin and they would now have rejected one of the easiest and most fundamental way of protecting yourself from fire / flash. I can hardly believe that.

There is an issued black t-shirt.

There isn’t an equivalent for the old NCD jacket - I think the folks use the fleece (liner for the new floater coat) in that case. The new NCDs seem to be thicker though - I haven’t worn them, just saw others with them.

 

[Furniture]

The new NCEU is FR, but seems more like the FR kit issued to soldiers in its intent.

I.E. It doesn't make a bad situation worse by melting, but it seems to be less about overall protection.

The approach makes some sense to me, as the idea is to protect from flash fire more than for fighting fires.

 

[Underway]

Thanks, can some MARE/CSE (I know, I know - old-speak) type people tell us landlubbers what we are seeing, please?

I see a lot more antenna but I won't bore you with the navigation radars (two S band, two X band, one of each fwd and aft to give 360 degree coverage), comms antenna (where you see a dome think satcom of some sort), GPS recievers, IR sensors, SRD 506 antenna's, and so on.

The main differences that jump out to me from previous itterations is the canting of the NSM into a foward bow direction, inflatable decoys have been added (SOPD or other), and the selection of the SEWIP Block 2 (mature tech, IOC was 2012 I think so its been around a while).

The biggest difference is the elimination of the MDMA Fire Control Xband radars on the mast above the Spy 7 panels. Here's the infographic mast where they are still in the plan.


You can also see in that infographic image that there is no NA-30S Fire Control platform/antenna. This means the RCN switched out the FCS supplied by MDMA for this gun specific FCS (that is desiged to integrate specifcally with the 127mm). Overall I think this is a good decision for a number of reasons.

• Less weight high up in the mast
• less weight up top overall.
• CSC will need to use S-band active guidance on the ESSM and SM2 (from the Spy 7) OR relying on the missiles own active homing head (both completely great options)
• more space available on the mast top for other antenna that need the 360 view
• FC dedicated to the main gun will mean better gun accuracy and availability, particularly with the fancy Leonardo rounds that use guidance

 

[Underway]

There was a discussion here a few months ago regarding the exact 30mm system being fitted to the CSC, it would seem that the MARLIN-WS 30mm is being replaced by a new turret and gun combination.

Leonardo: new X-Gun 30 solution and Lionfish turret with first naval customers - Naval News

Leonardo has unveiled its new X-Gun 30x173 mm weapon system, accounting initial customers in the naval domain, alongside the three-barrel Gatling 20 mm and under-development single-barrel Blaze 30x113 mm weapon in a media tour at its Brescia facility.

www.navalnews.com

From what I can gather, Lionfish is the new line of remote weapon systems designed by Leonardo to improve on the Marlin mount. The X-gun is a Bushmaster competitor which can take NATO standard 30mm ammunition while having the same rate of fire, but apparently more selectable options for alternative fire rates and better suited to the role of countering unmanned systems. Better ammunition, more ready rounds alongside increased reliability and easier maintenance tied up in an enclosed stealth mount. Positive upgrade in capability if the marketing is to be believed, Leonardo has a pretty good track record for systems like this.

Not to surprised. I suspected that given the Leonardo main gun the secondary guns would be part of the package. Given UXV warfare is going to be a challenge that upgrade sales pitch probably found a receptive audience.

There is a difference in weight of roughly 900 lbs between what I can find for a similar 25mm mount (AOPS type likely heavier) and the listed weight of the Lionfish, definitely an option for AOPS to increase its punch on the cheap with minimal issues compared to other options. The AOR's are apparently supposed to have .50 cal RWS (the versions used on the CPF's?) so that might be more of an issue to swap out. MCDV's 40mm Boffin mount is hard to get a weight estimate from but I found a low end estimate of 2,500~ lbs, potentially within plausibility of fitting a 3,200 lb Lionfish mount on an MCDV but I'm not sure if the effort would be worth the result. It's not just the mount but the fire control systems aboard to use it as well.

JSS has no space where the RWS are being placed for a 25 or 30mm mount.
MCDVs will never get a larger gun, its not worth the crew training time, engineering effort and all the other admin that goes with that weapon. Getting rid of the 40 significantly reduced complication for the ship. Just the FCS for the gun alone will require a crewing change.

NavyShooter, are you saying the new NCD doesn't come with a requirement for a cotton t-shirt/underwear underlayer and doesn't have a jacket or wool sweater to go on top of the shirt?

If so then: Wow! Just Wow!

We had to fight for almost 20 years after unification to get shipboard clothing that protected us instead of polyester crap that melted to our skin and they would now have rejected one of the easiest and most fundamental way of protecting yourself from fire / flash. I can hardly believe that.

The new NCU provides the same amount of protection as the old NCD. Its basically like wearing the NCD jacket without the annoying/ugly blue shirt underneath. Double layered, relatively thick. It's quite warm in comparison to the Army garb. Sleaves roll perfectly as well. As for undershirts the issued undershirt is 100% cotton, not that it will matter, because if the heat's getting through that top layer you probably should have evacuated the space a while ago (your legs will tell you cause they be burnin before the Tshirt does!).
Frankly its safer than the blue shirt version, because sailors will be wearing their NCD jacket equivalent all the time instead of leaving it in the MCR and heading down to the space to fix something.
The side benifit is people in the general public actually recognize me as in the navy! Which is frankly very nice. I've never been mistaken for a commissionare, security guard or bus driver with that uniform on. People actually approach me and ask if I'm in the navy which is amazing. And this is in Ontario.
(Another side benifit is the army guys I work with are jealous of how sharp it looks compared to theirs... lol)

There is a fleece, which you get with your floater jacket that is the most amazing thing the RCN has ever issued to me. It is very warm and comfy, zips all the way up my neck, thick, and has thumb holes! It's not approved for an outer layer though, as its a fleece. But wearing it under the rain jacket or fueling jacket is almost as good as the parka.

 

[dimsum]

The new NCU provides the same amount of protection as the old NCD. It’s basically like wearing the NCD jacket without the annoying/ugly blue shirt underneath. Double layered, relatively thick. It's quite warm in comparison to the Army garb. Sleaves roll perfectly as well. As for undershirts the issued undershirt is 100% cotton, not that it will matter, because if the heat's getting through that top layer you probably should have evacuated the space a while ago (your legs will tell you cause they be burnin before the Tshirt does!).
Frankly its safer than the blue shirt version, because sailors will be wearing their NCD jacket equivalent all the time instead of leaving it in the MCR and heading down to the space to fix something.
The side benifit is people in the general public actually recognize me as in the navy! Which is frankly very nice. I've never been mistaken for a commissionare, security guard or bus driver with that uniform on. People actually approach me and ask if I'm in the navy which is amazing. And this is in Ontario.
(Another side benifit is the army guys I work with are jealous of how sharp it looks compared to theirs... lol)

There is a fleece, which you get with your floater jacket that is the most amazing thing the RCN has ever issued to me. It is very warm and comfy, zips all the way up my neck, thick, and has thumb holes! It's not approved for an outer layer though, as its a fleece. But wearing it under the rain jacket or fueling jacket is almost as good as the parka.

Aren’t there rank slides for ranks though?

memories of Army fleece hoopla

 

[Stoker]

Not to surprised. I suspected that given the Leonardo main gun the secondary guns would be part of the package. Given UXV warfare is going to be a challenge that upgrade sales pitch probably found a receptive audience.

JSS has no space where the RWS are being placed for a 25 or 30mm mount.
MCDVs will never get a larger gun, its not worth the crew training time, engineering effort and all the other admin that goes with that weapon. Getting rid of the 40 significantly reduced complication for the ship. Just the FCS for the gun alone will require a crewing change.


The new NCU provides the same amount of protection as the old NCD. Its basically like wearing the NCD jacket without the annoying/ugly blue shirt underneath. Double layered, relatively thick. It's quite warm in comparison to the Army garb. Sleaves roll perfectly as well. As for undershirts the issued undershirt is 100% cotton, not that it will matter, because if the heat's getting through that top layer you probably should have evacuated the space a while ago (your legs will tell you cause they be burnin before the Tshirt does!).
Frankly its safer than the blue shirt version, because sailors will be wearing their NCD jacket equivalent all the time instead of leaving it in the MCR and heading down to the space to fix something.
The side benifit is people in the general public actually recognize me as in the navy! Which is frankly very nice. I've never been mistaken for a commissionare, security guard or bus driver with that uniform on. People actually approach me and ask if I'm in the navy which is amazing. And this is in Ontario.
(Another side benifit is the army guys I work with are jealous of how sharp it looks compared to theirs... lol)

There is a fleece, which you get with your floater jacket that is the most amazing thing the RCN has ever issued to me. It is very warm and comfy, zips all the way up my neck, thick, and has thumb holes! It's not approved for an outer layer though, as its a fleece. But wearing it under the rain jacket or fueling jacket is almost as good as the parka.

Apprently there's a new fleece coming. Often enough the jacket is not worn in the spaces.