# 'Unsolicited' presentation claims the frigate's main guns are nearly obsolete



## observor 69 (23 Dec 2019)

The Department of National Defence has faced some tough, pointed questions about whether it has chosen the right radar, main gun and close air defence systems for the navy's new frigates, which will soon hit the drawing board.

An unsolicited defence industry slide deck presentation, obtained by CBC News, questions each of those key components in the planned $60 billion modernization of the fleet.

It was circulated earlier this year and put in front of the senior federal officials in charge of the program.

More at link:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-gun-radar-canadian-navy-1.5405054


----------



## Stoker (23 Dec 2019)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> The Department of National Defence has faced some tough, pointed questions about whether it has chosen the right radar, main gun and close air defence systems for the navy's new frigates, which will soon hit the drawing board.
> 
> An unsolicited defence industry slide deck presentation, obtained by CBC News, questions each of those key components in the planned $60 billion modernization of the fleet.
> 
> ...



Made by a competitor that didn't win the competition :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Dec 2019)

Good Lord, this article is awful.

A competitor who lost the Frigate competition sends an unsolicited slide deck to DND trashing the winner of the competition, and it never occurs to CBC reporter to question the source of the slide deck for their biases?

127mm gun obsolete? How? Literally ever single western navy has moved in that direction. The bigger calibre gives a much wider range of effects possible.

CAMM unsuitable? It is, literally, the best close defence missile on the planet, at the moment.

While SPY-7 is not yet in service, it does promise to give The RCN a radar that can literally look from the surface of the ocean into space. With no moving parts. I like it.

Like I said- a terrible article.


----------



## Dale Denton (23 Dec 2019)

Safe buy = proven design
Proven design = old

New design = unproven
Unproven = high risk

So don't buy something we know works, because its old, and dont buy something new, because its unproven.

We should be taking risks, since when we get the first ship in 2036 the new stuff will be standard. Better off having the first 5 be 'Mark 1" or "Block 1" designs, give them the leftovers and cheap tech with the idea that when the Block 2s (next 5) come out that we'll already have built-in upgrades. Same as the USN and their DDGs.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2019)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Safe buy = proven design
> Proven design = old
> 
> New design = unproven
> ...



This, and the points made by SKT!
:nod:

This is a responsibly risk-managed approach to leverage newer technology into progressively/iteratively refined implementations.  ‘Proven‘ can also be sub-categorized madness considered at TRLs less than 9, yet still meet the intent of a technologically advanced yet appropriately operable and supportable system. 

CBC should have but a big disclaimer on this article, “This article is based on a presentation provided by the non-compliant bidder.” 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Uzlu (23 Dec 2019)

> The briefing presentation apparently was circulated by a rival radar-maker which was not part of the bidding process. Federal officials declined to name the company.
> 
> Raytheon Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent are among the biggest electronics and radar manufacturers in the world. A request for comment sent to their international business division went unanswered last week.


Was the briefing presentation made by Raytheon?  Raytheon, if I am not mistaken, was never even part of the Alion or Navantia consortiums that made a formal bid.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2019)

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Was the briefing presentation made by Raytheon?  Raytheon, if I am not mistaken, was never even part of the Alion or Navantia consortiums that made a formal bid.



Which would put into even greater question the validity of any argumentation against the selected system.


----------



## Swampbuggy (23 Dec 2019)

Raytheon did however lose out on a guided munitions project specifically for this gun back around 2008, so maybe still some sour grapes there.


----------



## Underway (23 Dec 2019)

127mm does have guided munitions.  Raytheon themselves make an Excalibur N5 which is a 127mm variant.  The Italians use as small as a 90mm version of GPS guided munitions.

Drives me nuts that people don't do their research.  At least the RCN/Gov't response at the end of the article if quite fair and robust enough to defend their position.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Dec 2019)

Perhaps some management personnel have migrated from Davie to Raytheon, as this type of play is familiar to the RCN.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Dec 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> 127mm does have guided munitions.  Raytheon themselves make an Excalibur N5 which is a 127mm variant.  The Italians use as small as a 90mm version of GPS guided munitions.



And they also make at least 2 missile systems that the RCN is considering (along with others) as strike missiles. 
I still don’t see the RCN giving up CIWS, which they just spent more than 600 million upgrading. The thing is dependable, already paid for and can be removed from one ship and installed on another.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Dec 2019)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Safe buy = proven design
> Proven design = old
> 
> New design = unproven
> ...



I don't think the radar in this case is completely unproven; it's a new variant on existing tech, with the resources of the USN behind working through any bugs. They will have so many in operation that it's a pretty safe bet any issues will be quickly sorted, so we'll benefit from that.


----------



## Underway (23 Dec 2019)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> And they also make at least 2 missile systems that the RCN is considering (along with others) as strike missiles.
> I still don’t see the RCN giving up CIWS, which they just spent more than 600 million upgrading. The thing is dependable, already paid for and can be removed from one ship and installed on another.



Frigates will be using them for a long time.  And the JSS has two of them (including a recessed one which is something new).  

The CIWS is not being installed on the CSC as its currently designed.  I've stated elsewhere that the 30mm gives the RCN its small boat defence and the CAMM is going to do a great job for CIAD.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I don't think the radar, in this case, is completely unproven; it's a new variant on existing tech, with the resources of the USN behind working through any bugs. They will have so many in operation that it's a pretty safe bet any issues will be quickly sorted, so we'll benefit from that.



Agreed.  Also, the Spanish F110 is getting it as well.  Given their run, it will be on at least 20 ships before its all over, and with its scalability, I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up on many more in the future.


----------

