# Canada and Aegis



## tomahawk6 (10 Dec 2016)

Are there plans for Canada to obtain the Aegis system ?


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Dec 2016)

I would think that would depend on which ship we pick in just under a year's time.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Dec 2016)

Most of our allies have Aegis capable warships,Canada should join the club.These ships could provide a measure of protection for both coasts and for deployed forces in high threat areas.


----------



## dimsum (11 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most of our allies have Aegis capable warships,Canada should join the club.These ships could provide a measure of protection for both coasts and for deployed forces in high threat areas.



Yes.  You're also talking about a country who, whether we admit it or not, would rather not spend $ on Defence as we'll "always have the Americans to cover us".


----------



## Monsoon (11 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most of our allies have Aegis capable warships,Canada should join the club.These ships could provide a measure of protection for both coasts and for deployed forces in high threat areas.


I think Korea, Australia, Japan and Spain are the only non-US users, no? Aegis is just Lockheed's brand of C2 system: when most people refer to "Aegis" they're really talking about a system that integrates active phased array radar sensors and a VLS-based guided missile system (and when the army talks about Aegis, they're usually just talking about Tomahawks). There are more ways than Aegis to skin that cat, and as a software platform Aegis is about 30 years old.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Dec 2016)

Pretty sure T6 was meaning in the Shakespearian sense of a 'rose,' i.e. fully* compatible with the USN's primary C2/FCS.

:2c:

G2G

* up to being part of the NCTR process and seamless tgt handoff, if need be.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Dec 2016)

Sounds expensive.  Daddy's wallet is a little light for bright and shiny things.  Besides, it would take forever...  I've become jaded since reality has slapped me silly in the 18 months I've been here at the puzzle palace and discovered it takes forever to accomplish anything of note.  If one can.


----------



## Underway (15 Jan 2017)

AFAIK only the F-100 from Navinata uses a Spy-1 system though I'm not sure if Aegis is part of it (as Aegis is the entire defensive system not just the radar).  Personally I think Aegis is a little bit overrated (not saying it isn't good, just not as good as it publicist would suggest).   It would also be in Canada and the US's benefit to have different defence and sensor systems.  This means they will each have different advantages and disadvantages so can cover each other off in combined operations.  

What you're primarily looking at is a version of the APAR/SMART-L system from the Dutch, Germans and Danish.  A Sea Fire 500 or variant from the French and a Selex ES from the  Italians.  The British Type 26 is currently looking like it will mount a type 996 3D radar.  I'm sure I missed something but really going by just odds its a 1 in 8 chance of Aegis.


----------



## OceanBonfire (10 May 2021)

I'll revive this thread instead of creating a new one:









						US State Dept approves potential sale of AEGIS Combat System to Canada -Pentagon
					

The U.S. State Department has approved the potential sale to Canada of 4 AEGIS Combat Systems made by Lockheed Martin in a deal valued at up to $1.7 billion, the Pentagon said on Monday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## calculus (11 May 2021)

And further to this: Canada – AEGIS Combat System | Defense Security Cooperation Agency


----------



## Underway (11 May 2021)

I've been saying this for ages.  The Aegis system refers to multiple things. The combat management system, the detect to engage software, the radars, the weapon systems...

From the article posted by @calculus


> The Government of Canada has requested to buy four (4) Shipsets of the AEGIS Combat System (ACS); one (1) AEGIS Combat System Computer Program; four (4) Shipsets of AN/SPY-7 Solid State Radar Components; four (4) Shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); and three (3) Shipsets of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System.  Also included is Mode 5/S capable Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; early ACS development activities for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project to include U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering activities supporting design, integration, testing, technical documentation, modeling, and training; hardware to support development and testing in U.S. facilities; software; documentation (including combat system capabilities and limitations); training devices and services; technical support; and other related elements of logistical and program support.  The estimated total cost is $1.7 billion.



As far as I understand the International Aegis Fire Control Loop (IAFCL) will be integrated into CMS330 along with the CEC.  Spy 7 is also considered an Aegis radar.  How and where CMS330 ends and Aegis begins I have no idea (and I'm sure LMC doesn't either quite yet).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2021)

calculus said:


> And further to this: Canada – AEGIS Combat System | Defense Security Cooperation Agency


While I realize this gear has neither been delivered nor installed into a ship yet, I can honestly say that I never thought that I would see the day when Canada got into the AEGIS/SPY radar game. This is big league stuff.


----------



## Underway (11 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> While I realize this gear has neither been delivered nor installed into a ship yet, I can honestly say that I never thought that I would see the day when Canada got into the AEGIS/SPY radar game. This is big league stuff.


I agree.  I know some of the folks who worked on the requirements (RCAF and RCN).  They worked hard on the identification of future threats/missions/roles, tapped the warfare centre to model/provide the best responses to those threats, and then wrote the requirements to meet and defeat the threats.  The primary goal all along was that sailors had to come home to their families.  And as the "controversial" bidding process went on it became apparent that they were not budging on some of those requirements despite the politicking. 

I don't think (pure supposition, I have no inside info) that the other bids met the requirements for AAW of the future.  Given what we now know regarding SPY 7, Aegis, CEC etc... I can see how an APAR or CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT based system might not have matched that performance.*

*cue enraged Aussies


----------



## OldSolduer (11 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> While I realize this gear has neither been delivered nor installed into a ship yet, I can honestly say that I never thought that I would see the day when Canada got into the AEGIS/SPY radar game. This is big league stuff.


Infantry here lol - what makes this system so good? I have heard of it before but I'd like to know some of what makes it so good.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 May 2021)

High-power, high-efficiency and frequency stability from the electronic design, both circuitry and materials, paired with an established combat system good enough for the premier blue water navy as well as terrestrial stations for ballistic missile defence. It’s A-game stuff. 👍🏼


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> High-power, high-efficiency and frequency stability from the electronic design, both circuitry and materials, paired with an established combat system good enough for the premier blue water navy as well as terrestrial stations for ballistic missile defence. It’s A-game stuff. 👍🏼


No moving parts; resistant to combat damage because it can still work with parts of the antennae busted; can detect and track targets from sea level to low earth orbit. It is a monster of a system.


----------



## Underway (11 May 2021)

All of the above and the discrimination of extremely fast-moving, small targets in order to provide a fire control solution.  The SPY 7 is next-gen stuff.  The combat management system isn't really any better than what already exists with other navies (including our own), but using it leverages the common source library (aka app ecosystem) that the US has developed.  Which means numerous and specialized applications for a variety of combat scenarios/weapon systems.  Lots of advantages with that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2021)

Underway said:


> All of the above and the discrimination of extremely fast-moving, small targets in order to provide a fire control solution.  The SPY 7 is next-gen stuff.  The combat management system isn't really any better than what already exists with other navies (including our own), but using it leverages the common source library (aka app ecosystem) that the US has developed.  Which means numerous and specialized applications for a variety of combat scenarios/weapon systems.  Lots of advantages with that.


Oh yeah- forgot about all of that. Plus the advantage of being networked into CEC means your ship can stay silent and fire ordnance based on somebody else’s fire control data. Keeps one alive somewhat longer!


----------



## blacktriangle (11 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> No moving parts; resistant to combat damage because it can still work with parts of the antennae busted; can detect and track targets from sea level to low earth orbit. It is a monster of a system.


Do I understand correctly that since it's modular (essentially a bunch of self contained radar blocks), you could theoretically scale it up to be more and more capable as long as you have sufficient power generation & processing ability to keep up? And also scale it down, to whatever the minimum threshold to support a functional system would be?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2021)

reveng said:


> Do I understand correctly that since it's modular (essentially a bunch of self contained radar blocks), you could theoretically scale it up to be more and more capable as long as you have sufficient power generation & processing ability to keep up? And also scale it down, to whatever the minimum threshold to support a functional system would be?


Not really sure about much more than what is in the sales brochure.


----------



## RedFive (13 May 2021)

Underway said:


> I've been saying this for ages.  The Aegis system refers to multiple things. The combat management system, the detect to engage software, the radars, the weapon systems...
> 
> From the article posted by @calculus
> 
> ...



I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 May 2021)

RedFive said:


> I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.


I would say that buying in (say) chunks of 3-4 is a good way of going.

I know other programs where all the mission kit was bought, in advance. It sat on shelves for years before being installed. In some case it went obsolete before being used and/or the OEM went out of business, leaving no parts support.

Doing it this way is much safer from a future proofing strategy.


----------



## Underway (13 May 2021)

RedFive said:


> I know the program to build the CSC is a long one, and the actual hulls hitting the water are far away. Is it normal to buy a handful or a major component at a time? It seems to me that leaves us open to purchasing the latest versions of components as the program proceeds, but at the same time can increase costs to purchase and we could end up with different blocks of vessels with different capabilities.


It's not normally advertized but the CSC is actually a batch build by nature of the contract.  The Gov't isn't signing a build contract for all 15 ships upfront, they will likely do three (hence the 4 Aegis systems, 3 for the ship + 1 for land-based training/testing).  Sometime in the middle of the build they will look at the second batch of ships.  It will look like this:

3 ships, 4 ships, 4 ships, 4 ships.

This is fair to both the taxpayer and ISI.  The ships will be built over 25 years or so.  The batch model primarily allows for more appropriate pricing info based on the relevant economy with no crazy forecasting required.  It also provides structure to modify the design and contract for any number of good reasons, like a subcontractor going belly up or tech changes.

This is really the way most of these long-term shipbuilding projects go.



> I know other programs where all the mission kit was bought, in advance. It sat on shelves for years before being installed. In some case it went obsolete before being used and/or the OEM went out of business, leaving no parts support.
> 
> Doing it this way is much safer from a future proofing strategy.


This is very true from a ship design  program.  When the various organizations stick their noses into the PMO's to say "Oh that isn't the way we do it now." they are often told, "You should have said something 5 years ago when the requirements were written, or 3 years ago when the design was being developed or 1 year ago when the design was approved. Equipment has been bought, the build has started. Too late now".


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2021)

> The F-35 is a hugely important program for me. We’re still in the early stages. I’ve only had 21 delivered so far of my 48 original order, we’ll be up at 33 next year and 48 in the years after that. *I’m very conscious that the reason we bought the F-35Bs was to pair them up with our two carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. [The carriers] are going to be in service until the late 2060s, at least. And so I need a fleet of aircraft that is going to last into that sort of time frame.* *So I’m taking a very steady view to how I bSuild a fleet up because I need these aircraft to last for that amount of time.*
> We are committing to growing the fleet and we’re going to continue to grow the fleet. And in that regard, nothing has changed. We’ve had discussions with the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin this year, and decisions are to be made next year about the next batch of aircraft that we will buy. We have now established two squadrons: a training unit and a front-line squadron. I’m looking to establish a third squadron, and I think I need at least three, probably four squadrons worth of F-35Bs to work off the carriers.
> But as I say, this is still a force that we’re growing. And *we are going to be operating these platforms for potentially 50 years. So I’m not in any hurry to get to any final figure in the short term. And we will just make sure that we’ve got a force that is sustainable through the life of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
> *



I think the same rationale goes into missiles, radars and engines.  And it applies to any Canadian buy of F35s.  If the F35s are going to be in service for 40 years should they all be bought at once?  Or should they be staged over time?


----------



## Underway (13 May 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> I think the same rationale goes into missiles, radars and engines.  And it applies to any Canadian buy of F35s.  If the F35s are going to be in service for 40 years should they all be bought at once?  Or should they be staged over time?


I suspect that there are different considerations for fleet management when you have 80 of something "cheap" vs 15 of something "expensive" (relatively speaking).

I wouldn't surprise me if the RCAF integrated 20 new fighters a year over 5 years however.


----------

