# FELEX - Halifax Class Modernisation



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Our frigates still stack favourably to most other nations frigates, they are a capable platform and once FELEX is underway wil continue to do an outstanding job for Canada and the Navy.



I wouldn't go quite that far. 

The basic threat level has increased since the CPF was designed back in the early 1980's. Most of the newer frigates out there now have systems capable of dealing with those threats, while the FELEX FFH won't. 

The FELEX program has more to do with industrial currency rather than combat system improvements. There should be a few system improvements, they just won't be enough to raise the system performance to the level required to meet projected high threat environments. Even medium threat environments are going to require increased risk tolerance.

If we had the money, we'd be far better off replacing the FFH with newer models and newer systems. We don't have the money, so we're doing what we can. 

For what its worth, the FELEX FFH will probably be better equipped to meet the threats of the next 15 years than the Cadillacs were to meeting the threats of the 1980's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And the last time you sailed was when? The last time you did any sort of operation was when? The last time you did any sort of exchange with a foreign navy and used their kit and saw it in action was when?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

2000 to the first two questions and most of the last.

However, once I left the CF I worked for a military R&D/consulting firm in the US. I did a lot of work on this type of issue there.

Was there something specific you wanted to address?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> 2000 to the first two questions and most of the last.
> 
> However, once I left the CF I worked for a military R&D/consulting firm in the US. I did a lot of work on this type of issue there.
> 
> Was there something specific you wanted to address?



You imply by your post that the CPFs cannot do their jobs and while they are not F100s or F124s they are still a very effective platform. To say otherwise is deceiving.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You imply by your post that the CPFs cannot do their jobs and while they are not F100s or F124s they are still a very effective platform. To say otherwise is deceiving.



I think you're reading into that a bit.

The CPF's will be able to do everything they do now as long as they're in a low to medium threat environment. The upgraded FELEX systems just plain won't be able to handle defence in a high threat environment, maybe certain medium threat environments. It's an artifact of the combat system architecture (SARH missiles with separate illuminators and conventional rotating MRR). I can show you exactly how that works if you'd like, but we should probably start another thread for that. The F-100 and F-124's use an entirely different combat system architecture (SARH missiles with either separate time-shared or combined illuminators and phased array radars) that's able to handle the projected high threat environment albeit at a high cost. 

I suppose the FELEX CPF will be able to do its job well in a high threat environment as long as nobody's shooting at them, if that's what you're getting at.


----------



## Good2Golf

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I think you're reading into that a bit.
> 
> The CPF's will be able to do everything they do now as long as they're in a low to medium threat environment. The upgraded FELEX systems just plain won't be able to handle defence in a high threat environment, maybe certain medium threat environments. It's an artifact of the combat system architecture (SARH missiles with separate illuminators and conventional rotating MRR). I can show you exactly how that works if you'd like, but we should probably start another thread for that. The F-100 and F-124's use an entirely different combat system architecture (SARH missiles with either separate time-shared or combined illuminators and phased array radars) that's able to handle the projected high threat environment albeit at a high cost.
> 
> I suppose the FELEX CPF will be able to do its job well in a high threat environment as long as nobody's shooting at them, if that's what you're getting at.



So are you saying FELEX is either a waste of time or CMS' guys got it wrong?  ???


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

No, the CMS types are doing the best they can with what they have, and FELEX is definitely not a waste of time. 

They're just not going to be able to upgrade the FFH enough to let them operate in a high-threat environment if somebody is shooting at them. If they weren't upgraded, they'd have problems with a low-threat environment.


----------



## Good2Golf

When you say the FELEX ships won't be able to operate in a high-threat environment, is that "high-threat" as defined in any referenced contemporary and/or future security environment?

The Navy apparently believes it's properly addressing the situation with FELEX...



> In addition to the evolving threat, the operating environment for most current, and projected future, maritime operations has also changed. A change in operating profile from open-ocean conventional Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare and convoy escort roles with NATO forces to sea control and denial operations in the littorals, in coalition with new partners, often in support of operations ashore, has been observed and experienced recently. Now found more in the littoral, the HALIFAX Class frigates are operating much closer to shore than was intended in their original design. This proximity to land exposes the ships to potential threats from coastal or inland attack and significantly diminishes the available reaction time to levels beyond the capabilities of the current systems. It also poses particular challenges to sensors and weapon systems and imposes geographical limitations on stationing and manoeuvring. Furthermore, this new operating environment requires that ships be capable of detecting advanced threats in the highly cluttered electro-magnetic environments found close to, and over, land. For HALIFAX Class ships to be participants in advanced Joint and Combined Operations they must possess the capabilities to build the Common Operational Picture (COP). This is necessary to provide the requisite level of situational awareness that will allow participation in the extensive and complex range of operations expected by the Navy in the future. Specifically, for radar systems, littoral operations command the capability to determine rapidly and accurately the complete characteristics (range, bearing, altitude, speed and IFF) of any targets and potential threats.



Perhaps they've missed seeing something that you caught?

G2G


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

To Good2Golf and Ex-Dragoon,

Why is it you guys are making this personal?   ???

Frankly I think drunkensubmrnr has stated his opinion and provided his experience....after what was in essence a "Well WTF do you know?" challenge.

Bottom Line:  I'm never going to claim to be a naval arms expert, but there are more civil ways of debating the issue than what's being demonstrated in this thread.


Matthew.   

P.S.  To Good2Golf, I think the last 3 sentences of your quote highlight the fact that even Navy recognizes the limitations of the FELEX upgrade and seeks only to utilize it in high-threat environments as participants in a larger Joint Force.


----------



## Good2Golf

Matthew, my comments aren't personal to drunknsubmrnr, I would ask the same thing of anyone who said the likes of:



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> ....The upgraded FELEX systems just plain won't be able to handle defence in a high threat environment...



I am genuinely trying to understand what drunknsubmrnr is getting at with his attestation that FELEX can't survive in a high-threat environment, much less a medium-threat environment.  Any "chipiness" one can take from my query in Reply#5 comes from seeing people make what in my assessment are unjustified statements regarding the lack of capability of various systems.

Being a member of the junior service, I don't specifically have a dog in this fight.  However, as a member of the CF overall, which is a collection of joint capabilities that are chartered to operate in a range of threat environments, I take drunknsubmrnr's statements to the logical conclusion, that if he says FELEX won't be able to "operate in a high-threat environment if somebody is shooting at them", then what does he think FELEX will achieve...heck, he even questions whether they could operate in a low threat environment without upgrade:



> If they weren't upgraded, they'd have problems with a low-threat environment.



As well, I think that you have misinterpreted the last sentences of the excerpt I quoted.   You are said that:


> ...even Navy recognizes the limitations of the FELEX upgrade and seeks only to utilize it in high-threat environments as participants in a larger Joint Force.



The passage says no such thing -- it states that the HALIFAX ships must be suitably equipped in order to properly build the COP.


> For HALIFAX Class ships to be participants in advanced Joint and Combined Operations they must possess the capabilities to build the Common Operational Picture (COP).



You have added conditionality to FELEX's CONOP that in no way exists in the Navy's assessment.

Overall, you and drunknsubmrnr together seem to be heading towards painting FELEX as some kind of a lame duck that will be a drag on a Naval TF, vice a contribution.

Just so you don't jump on me for "widening the personalization" of this thread to include you, I can assure you that I am trying to understand where this assessment in FELEX's lack of capability to properly operate in the future security/operating environment is coming from.  Your input as well, although not as strongly stated at drunknsubmrnr indicates less understanding of FELEX than my friends in the Maritime Staff with whom I was just discussing FELEX with today.

Perhaps I'm right out of her, and FELEX will truly not be capable of operating in anything but a low-threat environment when the upgrades are complete?

I think not, however.

Regards
G2G


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When you say the FELEX ships won't be able to operate in a high-threat environment, is that "high-threat" as defined in any referenced contemporary and/or future security environment?



We reverse-engineered the projected threat environment by calculating the number of simultaneous interceptions that the common frigates could perform. That ranged from ~6 to ~16, maybe 32 depending on how much of the shiny brochures you believe. I don't have access to the threat specifications that those ships were designed to, but their capabilities range from 3 to 8 times that of the CPF.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps they've missed seeing something that you caught?



I very much doubt that. There's no way that they're unaware of the system limitations.

Notice that they never actually say in that section that they think the ships can deal with the threat once it's detected. As far as I know, every word in that section is correct. The overall impression that I get from that section is that everything is OK, but if you look at what's not being said the impression is different.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I am genuinely trying to understand what drunknsubmrnr is getting at with his attestation that FELEX can't survive in a high-threat environment, much less a medium-threat environment.  Any "chipiness" one can take from my query in Reply#5 comes from seeing people make what in my assessment are unjustified statements regarding the lack of capability of various systems.



I'm greatly offended...not. Considering our standard response to naval aviation was mooning them, you're quite civil. 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Being a member of the junior service, I don't specifically have a dog in this fight.  However, as a member of the CF overall, which is a collection of joint capabilities that are chartered to operate in a range of threat environments, I take drunknsubmrnr's statements to the logical conclusion, that if he says FELEX won't be able to "operate in a high-threat environment if somebody is shooting at them", then what does he think FELEX will achieve.



Well, it'll be able to operate in a low to medium threat environment even if someone is shooting at them. That's got to be worth something.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ..heck, he even questions whether they could operate in a low threat environment without upgrade:



I'm not questioning it. I'm stating flat out that it won't be able to operate in a low threat environment unless it's upgraded.

The major point behind FELEX is industrial currency, not capability improvement. The parts used in the current combat system are very hard to supply, leading to a lot of systems being down a lot of the time, and its getting worse. Without replacement by something we can actually get parts for, most of the defensive systems won't be operable. That puts even low threat environments out of reach. 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The passage says no such thing -- it states that the HALIFAX ships must be suitably equipped in order to properly build the COP.



Sure. They shouldn't have any siginificant issues in building the COP, or in detecting threats. However, they're going to some severe issues dealing with threats once they're identified.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Overall, you and drunknsubmrnr together seem to be heading towards painting FELEX as some kind of a lame duck that will be a drag on a Naval TF, vice a contribution.



Only in a high threat environment where they're being shot at. Maybe some medium threat environments. As I said, it's better than the Cadillac situation was in the 1980's. Low threat environments were marginal for those platforms at that time.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Just so you don't jump on me for "widening the personalization" of this thread to include you, I can assure you that I am trying to understand where this assessment in FELEX's lack of capability to properly operate in the future security/operating environment is coming from.  Your input as well, although not as strongly stated at drunknsubmrnr indicates less understanding of FELEX than my friends in the Maritime Staff with whom I was just discussing FELEX with today.



Just ask your friends on the Maritime Staff how many threats a CPF can simultaneously engage, before and after FELEX. The correct answer is 2. The other NATO frigates being built now range from 6 to 16.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm right out of her, and FELEX will truly not be capable of operating in anything but a low-threat environment when the upgrades are complete?



A FELEX FFH should be able to operate in most medium threat environments as near as I can tell. Where are you getting the low-threat after upgrade thing?


----------



## Harley Sailor

It's great when so many people talk like experts on subjects they are not fully informed on.  For instance the FELEX program and the HCM program are two separate projects.  The FELEX is to modernise the Ship, where the HCM is to modernise the Combat Systems.

Second thing is, have we looked at the task of the CPF before analyzing weather it is capable of doing it's job.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> For instance the FELEX program and the HCM program are two separate projects.  The FELEX is to modernise the Ship, where the HCM is to modernise the Combat Systems.



HCM isn't a project, it's a concept. FELEX is the overall project to implement the HCM concept, although there are separate subprojects underneath FELEX such as HMCCS and the Radar Upgrade project. In these cases, FELEX is responsible for integrating the subproject into the overall plan.


----------



## Harley Sailor

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> HCM isn't a project, it's a concept. FELEX is the overall project to implement the HCM concept, although there are separate subprojects underneath FELEX such as HMCCS and the Radar Upgrade project. In these cases, FELEX is responsible for integrating the subproject into the overall plan.



All I will say to that is that we have had different briefs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> All I will say to that is that we have had different briefs.



Agreed...but HS what do we know, we only sail onboard everyday and have been involved in Ops using the CPFs and 280s. These guys know whats going on more then we do. :


----------



## aesop081

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> It's great when so many people talk like experts on subjects they are not fully informed on.



been in the AF boards lately ?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Modernized HALIFAX Class Background
> The relationship between the HALIFAX Class Modernization (HCM) and the FELEX Project is important to understand.
> 
> The HCM can be thought of as a vision, which has been transposed into a written document, titled The Modernized HALIFAX Class Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR). Some of t he projects and sustainment activities needed to ensure the HALIFAX class operational effectiveness throughout the second half of its' life are listed below :
> 
> The FELEX project is primarily a risk mitigation project to ensure that the modernization of the HALIFAX Class is achieved in a timely, efficient, effective and coordinated manner. FELEX will manage to varying degrees, from total project responsibility to installation responsibility only, all work elements in the HCM. As the Design Integration Authority for the HCM, FELEX is responsible for the ship level design integration of all elements of the HCM including any unique/specific engineering changes required to address integration requirements. Effective risk mitigation will be achieved through the following specific activities: scope management, design integration engineering, integrated risk management across all elements of the HCM, schedule coordination, and implementation/installation management.
> 
> Capability Enhancement projects will implement new capabilities into the ships which are required to meet the new threats and changing operating environments (not all listed). These Capability Enhancement projects are either Stand-Alone (SA) projects with their own funding and Project Management group or are inherent in the FELEX Project.
> HMCCS - Halifax Modernized Command and Control System
> HALIFAX Class Radar UpgradeS
> IRIUS - Long-range infrared search and track system
> ESSM - Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
> IFF Mode S/5 - Interrogator Friend or Foe Mode S/5
> 
> 
> Integral FELEX Projects:
> 
> 
> Internal Communications System Upgrade;
> Harpoon Missile System Upgrade; and
> Electronic Warfare System upgrade – Electronic Support Measures.
> 
> Maintenance and sustainment activities and projects will strive to maintain equipment at its current level of capability.
> •  Mid-life refit
> 
> •  Preventive, corrective and unique mid-life
> maintenance activities
> 
> •  Sustainment engineering changes (not all listed)
> 
> •  Modifications to the BOFORS 57mm Naval
> Gun
> •  Replacement of the Shield II Missile Decoy Countermeasures System
> •  *Replacement of the Integrated Machinery Control System*
> •  Replacement of the Navigation Radar
> 
> Non Navy projects to accommodate the new Maritime Helicopter and the new Military Satellite Communication System.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmofelex/halifax_e.asp

Maybe the FELEX site is wrong and your brief was right.



> These guys know whats going on more then we do.



Have either of you ever taken the CPF or TRUMP fire control course? Or done any OJT on the CPF or TRUMP FC systems?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

oh yes the sum of the ship is its FC system.... : Very crucial, yes but the whole CCS is what makes or breaks a ship in combat.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I agree, and that's why I said the ship would be fine as long as someone isn't shooting at it.

If someone is shooting at it, that FC system is going to become very important, and it's going to have significant issues with some medium threats or all high threats.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I agree, and that's why I said the ship would be fine as long as someone isn't shooting at it.
> 
> If someone is shooting at it, that FC system is going to become very important, and it's going to have significant issues with some medium threats or all high threats.



Thats why we travel in a TG so other ships can assist when needed. Somedays someone will realize we need a combat system like Aegis.


----------



## Harley Sailor

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Have either of you ever taken the CPF or TRUMP fire control course? Or done any OJT on the CPF or TRUMP FC systems?



Well, let me think back, I've been with the CPF project since 1989.  At the moment I am instructing CPF weapon systems.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Well, let me think back, I've been with the CPF project since 1989.  At the moment I am instructing CPF weapon systems.



OK. Then you know why the CPF is limited to 2 simultaneous engagements? (Not counting the CIWS)


----------



## aesop081

Freindly OPSEC reminder.....

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Harley Sailor

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> OK. Then you know why the CPF is limited to 2 simultaneous engagements? (Not counting the CIWS)



Again you need to look at the role of the CPF before talking about it's defence.  

You need to ask why would a CPF be under attack from multi threat. Does the enemy usually attack a patrol ship or the main body.  That would be like using your team to take out the recon team and giving your position away.  Don't you try to slip by the patrols to attack the main body.


----------



## Good2Golf

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..heck, he even questions whether they could operate in a low threat environment without upgrade:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not questioning it. *I'm stating flat out that it won't be able to operate in a low threat environment unless it's upgraded.*
Click to expand...


A self-acknowledged "flat out" statement by you, followed a few lines later by this question of yours in response to my statement...



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm right out of her, and FELEX will truly not be capable of operating in anything but a low-threat environment when the upgrades are complete?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A FELEX FFH should be able to operate in most medium threat environments as near as I can tell. *Where are you getting the low-threat after upgrade thing?*
Click to expand...



Ummmm....the answer to your question in the second highlighted text, is your response to my query in the first highlighted text.  I'm getting the "low-threat after upgrade" bit directly from you.  That is what you're asking me in the second highlight, right?  ???

I'm now losing the bubble...what is your position on low-threat after upgrade?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> I'm getting the "low-threat after upgrade" bit directly from you.



No, I said it won't be able to operate in a low threat environment *unless* it's upgraded. I said it would be able to operate in a low to medium threat environment once it's upgraded.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr,

A quick favour....without getting into too much OPSEC stuff on FELEX, can you elaborate on what enemy systems you believe contribute to a "High Threat Environment", and which systems on other naval platforms are required to neutralize/eliminate those threats.


Many thanks in advance,  Matthew.


----------



## Grizzly

Was the Halifax class EVER designed to fight in high threat engagements by itself? I had assumed that in any real shooting war that the Halifax's would have to be grouped with a Tribal class in order to grant the task group sufficient area defense. From what I understood, the Halifax has good short range defense systems but can't really deal with a high saturation attack by itself. Am I wrong? Would FELEX change this?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> A quick favour....without getting into too much OPSEC stuff on FELEX, can you elaborate on what enemy systems you believe contribute to a "High Threat Environment", and which systems on other naval platforms are required to neutralize/eliminate those threats.



Without getting into specifics, there have been a lot of supersonic systems developed in the last few years. There have also been a lot of the older subsonic systems built. A "High Threat" environment would involve a lot of the newer systems, although you could also have more of the older systems.

Other navies have developed systems like the APAR/SM-2 or the Herakles/Aster systems to deal with large numbers of high-speed missiles. The USN Aegis system has also been adapted for smaller ships.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Grizzly said:
			
		

> Was the Halifax class EVER designed to fight in high threat engagements by itself? I had assumed that in any real shooting war that the Halifax's would have to be grouped with a Tribal class in order to grant the task group sufficient area defense. From what I understood, the Halifax has good short range defense systems but can't really deal with a high saturation attack by itself. Am I wrong? Would FELEX change this?



The Halifax was meant to be deployed into high threat areas in conjunction with TRUMPs. However, that was back in the early 80's. The threats have developed enough since then that being deployed with an AAW ship isn't enough any more. AAW ships have issues of their own in dealing with threats against ships that they aren't directly guarding. Normally there are only enough AAW ships to guard the high value units, not the frigates.

FELEX should help with saturation attacks, but it's not going to be more than an incremental improvement. Everyone else has gone to major improvements through new systems and ships.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When you say the FELEX ships won't be able to operate in a high-threat environment, is that "high-threat" as defined in any referenced contemporary and/or future security environment?



Apparently the CF version is "Threat to Canada's Maritime Forces - A Look to 2025". As referenced in section 2.3.1.1 of the JSS SOR.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of major piece in _Defense Industry Daily_:

Modernizing Canada’s Halifax Class Frigates   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Modernizing-Canadas-Halifax-Class-Frigates-05062/



> Launched between 1988-1995, and commissioned between 1992-1996, Canada’s 12 City Class (now Halifax Class) frigates currently form the high end of its naval capabilities. The Canadian Navy has declined drastically from its post-WWII status as the world’s 4th largest navy, and the Halifax Class itself is finding that its open-ocean design is not suited to cope with modern littoral threats and improving anti-ship missiles. Replacement vessels are still many years away, which means that the 4,750t frigates will need to be modernized within the limits of their design if they are to remain effective.
> 
> Canada’s government has decided to fund that modernization, much as Australia and New Zealand are modernizing the Halifax Class’ ANZAC Frigate contemporaries. Refits are scheduled to begin with HMCS Halifax in 2010, and that ship is scheduled to re-enter service about 18 months later in 2012. By 2017, all 12 frigates are scheduled to be upgraded as part of a C$ 3.1 billion (about $2.9 billion) program. This DII Spotlight article explains the scope of the upgrades, notes the current systems, and covers the contracts and developments involved…



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I am disappointed I missed this thread first time around - looked like a good old fashioned street brawl in the makings! For anyone who cares, with the exception of monitoring, the MSE changes incorporated into HCM/FELEX are SQUAT. I suppose we are holding our own wrt the first 2 of Float, Move, Fight!!


----------



## STONEY

One thing i've noticed in all the discussion of Felex  update is NO discussion at all of anti-submarine at all.
Have subs dissappeared from the equation alltogether.  Is the Halifax class soldiering on with sonar that was onboard 
modernized Restigouche class ships 30 years ago or was a new HMS installed that i missed or has CANTASS replaced HMS.


----------



## aesop081

STONEY said:
			
		

> or has CANTASS replaced HMS.



If thats the case, we're truely screwed for the future.


----------



## Occam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If thats the case, we're truely screwed for the future.



Care to elaborate?  You can't be suggesting that we go pinging active sonar all the time...CANTASS was pretty good the last time I saw it used, and I can only assume it's improved since then.


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?



I'm afraid that i cant elaborate without going into things that dont belong in an open forum. I'm sure you understand.

That being said, the days of passive tracking are almost at an end. Get used to active and new technologies.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Modernizing-Canadas-Halifax-Class-Frigates-05062/

does not look like any updates or upgrades to either the CANTASS or HMS.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Is the Halifax class soldiering on with sonar that was onboard
> modernized Restigouche class ships 30 years ago or was a new HMS installed that i missed or has CANTASS replaced HMS.



I'm pretty sure the IRE's never had SQS-510 in either HMS or VDS. They definitely didn't have the -510 in 1980.

An active towed array was considered for FELEX but dropped on cost.

FELEX is focussed on replacing kit that is no longer industrially supportable with equivalents that are supportable. For the most part, the ships after FELEX won't be able to do much more than a current City class can do, they'll just be able to do it more reliably.


----------



## saltymike

Both the Iroquois class and the Halifax class have 510s in various configurations.

The Iroquois class has a hull-mounted 510 and VDS 510 (at least the TRUMPed ones do).  The Halifax class has the hull-mounted 510 - I think that since they have the CANTASS, there is no room for a VDS 510. 

The 510s seem to be doing well (correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe that's why no replacement as of yet.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar

VDS was removed a long time ago from the IRO Class, they are all sitting on pallets rusting in from of FMF. The equipment spaces are used for storage or a nice place to hide and take a nap. As far as I know, there is no plan to acquire anything similar.


----------



## Occam

Chunks said:
			
		

> VDS was removed a long time ago from the IRO Class, they are all sitting on pallets rusting in from of FMF. The equipment spaces are used for storage or a nice place to hide and take a nap. As far as I know, there is no plan to acquire anything similar.



So endeth the "Captain's getaway submarine" tales to naive ship's tour guests.


----------



## STONEY

SQS-510 is merly an uprated SQS-505 (more solid state) which was carried on IRE'S

During a recent tour of a IRO class a crewman showed me the garbage storage area where the VDS 510 had been removed. he stated it was because they now had Nixie (ha ha) which did a better job.

Vds a Canadian invention was touted as the greatest invention since sliced bread that could detect submarines at far greater ranges than HMS and do it below thermal layers.  What?  there are no more thermal barriers.

Recently a Canadian company won a multi million dollar contract to supply the Dutch Navy with the latest Active Towed Aray Sonar (you know the type that was too expensive for FELEX).

Many NATO frigates have updated their Sonars some twice since we fielded the 510.
This is only one sensor so it would seem, that its what we can sell to the GOV & the unwashed masses rather  rathed than whats the best available.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The SQS-510 has about the same relationship to the SQS-505 as the SPS-502 had to the SPS-10 ie not a whole lot in common other than the antenna/transducer. Re-using those tends to keep the cost down, but the important bits are all new.

Most of the cost of a warship is in it's combat systems. The entire budget for FELEX is about the same as for one new destroyer, and it has to buy and install systems for twelve ships. There just isn't enough money to add many new capabilities, they're having to struggle to just keep the old ones working. I think they're doing a pretty good job considering their constraints.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

STONEY said:
			
		

> One thing i've noticed in all the discussion of Felex  update is NO discussion at all of anti-submarine at all.
> Have subs dissappeared from the equation alltogether.  Is the Halifax class soldiering on with sonar that was onboard
> modernized Restigouche class ships 30 years ago or was a new HMS installed that i missed or has CANTASS replaced HMS.


The _Canada First _ Defence Strategy only called for "a new command and control system, new radar capability, a new electronic warfare system and upgraded communications and missiles. Separate refit and stand-alone projects will include installation of new mechanical systems and modifications to accommodate the new Cyclone helicopters and a new military satellite communications system."


----------



## NavyShooter

As a SONAR techie, I'm watching with interest.....any more OPEN SOURCE insight on what they're planning to do with my kit?

NS


----------



## Occam

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As a SONAR techie, I'm watching with interest.....any more OPEN SOURCE insight on what they're planning to do with my kit?
> 
> NS



Some of it is being upgraded...







 ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

PING!!!!!!!

That's my addiction fixed....for those who know my e-mail address (personal) this is an even more amuzing addendum...

NS


----------



## Lineman

Sorry for reviving an old thread but this seems the most relevant place to post.

Links to Halifax Shipping news re: recent photos of HMCS Halifax and her visible upgrades

http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/06/halifax-class-mid-life-refit-update.html

http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/06/more-of-hmcs-halifax.html

http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/06/hmcs-halifax-back-to-dockyard.html


----------



## Ziobrop

Halifax Shipping News' Full Coverage of the FELEX Updates can be Found at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/search/label/FELEX
Fredericton is at the Machine Shop Wharf, being kited out, and HMCS Montreal is in the Graving Dock.

Montreal presumably is partially done, as she was the http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2010/03/cyclone-testing.htmltest ship for the cyclone.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Actually the MHP retrofit is not part of HCM FELEX but is a separate upgrade on it's own.


----------



## Ziobrop

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Actually the MHP retrofit is not part of HCM FELEX but is a separate upgrade on it's own.



True, Though I thought they were running concurently..


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Some are but with the latest delays...?


----------



## Ziobrop

HMCS Halifax Was Spotted in the Approaches today on trials.
http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/11/hmcs-halifax-out-on-trials.html


----------



## viper3ca

I thought I read that the Halifax class was to be fitted with the Smart-L 3D Radar.From the pics I have seen of her on sea trails it doesn't appear to be installed.


----------



## AlexanderM

I believe it's the Smart-S Mk2, not the Smart-L.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

It is Smart-S. Smart-L is a lot bigger and used for AAW/TBMD.

That picture in the approaches looks like a smaller antenna than the SPS-49.


----------



## NavyShooter

http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/06/more-of-hmcs-halifax.html

That page has some better photos of the radar mast area....

http://www.thalesgroup.com/smart-s/


----------



## Ziobrop

Addtional Photos of HMCS Halifax. http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/01/more-post-felex-hmcs-halifax-photos.html
not shown, but it looks like the Flight deck has the Modifications for the Cyclone.

HMCS Fredericton was also moved back to HMC Dockyard last week. http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/01/hmcs-fredericton-finished-felex.html


----------



## Occam

Ziobrop said:
			
		

> HMCS Fredericton was also moved back to HMC Dockyard last week. http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/01/hmcs-fredericton-finished-felex.html - She lacks the Command additions.



She lacks _what_?


----------



## Ziobrop

2 of the frigates (HMCS Halifax and HMCS Fredercton) are getting addtional Task force command features that currently only exist on Iroquois and Athabaskan. The biggest physical difference  on the outside is the addtion of the 2 large communications domes on the hangar, which will sit on extensions under the aft fire control radar.


----------



## Occam

Ziobrop said:
			
		

> 2 of the frigates (HMCS Halifax being one) are getting addtional Task force command features that currently only exist on Iroquois and Athabaskan. The biggest physical difference  on the outside is the addtion of the 2 large communications domes on the hangar, which on Halifax will sit on extensions under the aft fire control radar.



Your information is pretty inaccurate.  Are you referring to the domes shown on FRE here?  http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/11/fredericton-and-montreal-felex-update.html


----------



## Ziobrop

Opps. Mixed up Fredricton and Montreal in my head.
Halifax and Fredercton Have the Mods. Montreal will not.


----------



## Occam

Some of the CTG modifications are being applied to all 12 of the Halifax class.  Some, like the domes you've mentioned...are only being applied to specific ships.


----------



## Ziobrop

Charlettown Due for refit April 1.
http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/02/felex-updates.html


----------



## AlexanderM

So had HMCS Winnipeg just come out of FELIX?  Then this collision.  I hope the damage isn't too bad.  Another article I read indicated that the Winnipeg had just undergone a massive refit and systems upgrade.  

So, she was returned to the RCN on April 10th and then this happens.  If you see the video it's quite a collision.

http://globalnews.ca/news/504436/u-s-fish-boat-collides-with-docked-navy-ship/


----------



## Occam

Yes, WIN had just finished the contractor phase of FELEX at VSL.


----------



## Ziobrop

Hmcs Halifax was tied up on the waterfront for Battle of the Atlantic Commemorations last weekend. I was able to get some close up photos

http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/05/hmcs-halifax-up-close-post-felex.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with the latest ....


> Canada’s 12 Halifax-class frigates continue their planned modernization with a $15 million contract awarded to Bronswerk Marine Inc. of Brossard, Quebec, for the replacement of the ships’ chilled-water systems.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The contract will directly create or sustain jobs in the Brossard area. The contract will also have indirect benefits for the workforce, as approximately 85 per cent of the chilled-water systems’ content and technology are Canadian-made.
> 
> This contract covers the purchase of 50 chilled-water plants and pumps, with four units allocated to each frigate, and one training unit for sailors on each coast. Chilled-water systems provide the cooling capacity needed to operate the array of systems onboard the frigates.
> 
> The units will be delivered between 2014 and 2018, well before Canada’s Federal Halocarbon Regulations bring into force a ban in 2020 on R22 coolant, which is used in the existing systems on the Halifax-class fleet. The new chilled-water systems will use a coolant compliant with these regulations.
> 
> The chilled-water system replacement is a sub-project under the Halifax-class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension project ....


DND/CF Info-machine, 21 Aug 13


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped, again, with the latest ....


> The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls and Minister of National Defence, today announced the successful modernization of the first four _Halifax_-Class frigates. The _Halifax_-class modernization/frigate equipment life extension (HCM/FELEX) is a $4.3 billion program to upgrade and enhance the existing fleet. The program has remained on budget and is scheduled to be completed by 2018.
> 
> Following recent sea trials, Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) _Fredericton_ is currently preparing to deploy as the first modernized frigate at high readiness in early 2015.
> 
> As the Royal Canadian Navy undergoes its most extensive peacetime modernization in history, the 12 Canadian-built multi-role patrol frigates will continue to form the backbone of the fleet. The first four frigates to be modernized as part of the HCM/FELEX are HMCS _Halifax, Fredericton, Calgary_, and _Winnipeg_ ....


Also attached in case link doesn't work for you.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quote:
"As the Royal Canadian Navy undergoes its most extensive peacetime modernization in history, the 12 Canadian-built multi-role patrol frigates will continue to form the backbone of the fleet."

I underlined in yellow. My view: It would not have been even necessary to modernize at all if the government hadn't delayed the follow on program of SCSC's. Had they gone right into such program, as was recommended by the Navy, the first SCSC's would have come out around 2004-2005. After replacement of the last IRO around 2009, you would have kept on going to replace the oldest HAL as they got to about 20 years old. No need for any modernization program. You could even had put some of those HAL in reserve for five to ten years or sold them to less fortunate friendly navies, such as South American ones.


----------



## Occam

You've got to go back a few years _decades_ before you can find RCN ships that served less than 20 years of service before being paid off.


----------



## Occam

Interesting video of all the work being done during FELEX at this link - http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2014/11/felex-update-first-4-done.html?spref=fb


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Occam said:
			
		

> You've got to go back a few years _decades_ before you can find RCN ships that served less than 20 years of service before being paid off.


Ahhh, you should never throw a challenge out like that:
HMC Ships Anticosti and Moresby.

But, sadly, what you say is true. Not counting wartime ships, I think the only other one...ever, was the Tribal HMCS Micmac which was decommissioned just shy of 20 years. That was because of a collision in which her keel was bent though.


----------



## Occam

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Ahhh, you should never throw a challenge out like that:
> HMC Ships Anticosti and Moresby.
> 
> But, sadly, what you say is true. Not counting wartime ships, I think the only other one...ever, was the Tribal HMCS Micmac which was decommissioned just shy of 20 years. That was because of a collision in which her keel was bent though.



Doh...I probably should have been more specific.  Anticosti and Moresby had more than 20 years of service (not all RCN) on their hulls when they were paid off, which is what I actually meant.

Some of the St.Laurent and Restigouche classes had fewer than 20 years on their hulls when they were paid off.

I think (and I'll have to confirm today at work) that the Halifax class was expected to have more than a 20-year service life - _how much more_, I can't recall.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

It is actually referred to as ELE - Estimated Life Expectancy and HAL (I am pretty sure) was 25-30. The issue up until IRO was not the hull but the combat system and it was never feasible to replace beyond obsolescence. Some of the STLs and follow on classes were actually in pretty sound shape mechanically when they decommissioned.
I remember doing a paper on this a couple years ago and the only non third-world country that kept ships around longer than us was the USN (USS Lexington for one-just shy of 50 years)

Oh, and only ST CROIX came close to less than 20 years service (15 Oct 54 – 15 Nov 74)


----------



## Occam

That's the same figure I've seen - 25-30 years - but I'll be damned if I can find a reference this morning. 

St.Laurent, Chaudiere, St.Croix, and Columbia were all commissioned fewer than 20 years.  You're using laid-down dates, I looked at commissioning dates.  Either way you look at it, they were pretty young compared to the long lives their sisters endured.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

25 to 30 years is not a fast rule but a NATO average service time for the smaller ships (that is cruisers and smaller - 45 to 50 years for aircraft carriers and large phibs is pretty standard), with the Brits and American closer to 25 and the French and German closer to 30. All of this is, however without major redesign, like we do with our life extension programs all the time. The Brits tend to use ships for about 12 years in commission, then lay them up for a mid-life refit, where some aspects are modernized, but mostly all the machinery is taken apart and repaired/refurbished over a year, then go back in commission for another 10 to 12 years.

If, as I suggested (and was proposed by the Navy) we had started replacing the HAL's in 2010 (after replacing the IROs), and replaced them at a rate of one every 12 to14 months, the first ones would have been retired near 20 years of age - without the need for extensive life extension -and the last one would have been retired around 2023 after 27 years of service. The number of operationally available ships (15) would have been maintained throughout,  with a reserve of 5 or 6 of the best retired HAL's on hand for a bit of quick expansion or replacement here and there as required due to long refits or major breakdown/accidents.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Occam said:
			
		

> That's the same figure I've seen - 25-30 years - but I'll be damned if I can find a reference this morning.
> 
> St.Laurent, Chaudiere, St.Croix, and Columbia were all commissioned fewer than 20 years.  You're using laid-down dates, I looked at commissioning dates.  Either way you look at it, they were pretty young compared to the long lives their sisters endured.


I had a copy of the original SOR written in 1978. I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 25 to 30 years is not a fast rule but a NATO average service time for the smaller ships (that is cruisers and smaller - 45 to 50 years for aircraft carriers and large phibs is pretty standard), with the Brits and American closer to 25 and the French and German closer to 30. All of this is, however without major redesign, like we do with our life extension programs all the time. The Brits tend to use ships for about 12 years in commission, then lay them up for a mid-life refit, where some aspects are modernized, but mostly all the machinery is taken apart and repaired/refurbished over a year, then go back in commission for another 10 to 12 years.
> 
> If, as I suggested (and was proposed by the Navy) we had started replacing the HAL's in 2010 (after replacing the IROs), and replaced them at a rate of one every 12 to14 months, the first ones would have been retired near 20 years of age - without the need for extensive life extension -and the last one would have been retired around 2023 after 27 years of service. The number of operationally available ships (15) would have been maintained throughout,  with a reserve of 5 or 6 of the best retired HAL's on hand for a bit of quick expansion or replacement here and there as required due to long refits or major breakdown/accidents.



Such an idea is to sound, it would mean a constantly busy yard with trained employees passing on corporate knowledge and skill sets. It would also allow such a yard to reinvest in more modern equipment and basically outdo all the other yards in the country. How would you spread the pork around?


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If, as I suggested (and was proposed by the Navy) we had started replacing the HAL's in 2010 (after replacing the IROs), and replaced them at a rate of one every 12 to14 months, the first ones would have been retired near 20 years of age - without the need for extensive life extension -and the last one would have been retired around 2023 after 27 years of service. The number of operationally available ships (15) would have been maintained throughout,  with a reserve of 5 or 6 of the best retired HAL's on hand for a bit of quick expansion or replacement here and there as required due to long refits or major breakdown/accidents.


 :rofl:
That is just crazy talk! That idea makes no sense at all. You must never have been to Ottawa.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Such an idea is to sound, it would mean a constantly busy yard with trained employees passing on corporate knowledge and skill sets. It would also allow such a yard to reinvest in more modern equipment and basically outdo all the other yards in the country. How would you spread the pork around?


Pork aside, this is exactly what some countries do just for these reasons.  We should do the same it would also give us the added benefit of incorporating new design changes and modifications as they come to pass.  Take the Spitfire as an example, there was I believe 24 different Mks and variants of this aircraft which enabled it to be in production until 1947 and front line service into the 1950's.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> That is just crazy talk! That idea makes no sense at all. You must never have been to Ottawa.



I have so been to Ottawa: wonderful museums.

… Oh! You mean at HQ!!! No, never, Thank god.


----------



## Spencer100

Interest picture of a ship in FELEX

They really do a lot of work on these midlife updates.  Maybe as I have read earlier on these boards would it be better to just use the ships for 20 years and buy new?  It would keep the ship yards open and the knowledge base going.


----------



## Spencer100

Also as a person who has some knowledge of manufacturing and processing....that shipyard could use could TPS, Lean and 5S processes!  And yes I can say that from one picture.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

plus you could sell the ship to a friendly 3rd world nation at the end of 20 years


----------



## Occam

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Also as a person who has some knowledge of manufacturing and processing....that shipyard could use could TPS, Lean and 5S processes!  And yes I can say that from one picture.



Unless you've actually seen how much hull work gets done, and hardware and cabling gets removed/installed during one of these refits, you really can't offer credible comment on the refit based on one picture.  I have one Engineering Change being installed during the refit, and it's staggering how much work has gone into a seemingly minor little project.  I have a whole new appreciation for the level of effort that goes into projects like this.  I've seen the shipyards on both coasts, and while the VSL yard tends to be a little neater, they don't have to contend with the winter that Halifax has seen so far.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Also as a person who has some knowledge of manufacturing and processing....that shipyard could use could TPS, Lean and 5S processes!  And yes I can say that from one picture.



First of all, I will assume you meant to say 6S (i.e. the Six-Sigma process).

Second of all, as I look at the picture I see a fairly well organized shipyard, a ship in mid refit that looks particularly tidy compared to what they sometimes look like and all the proper safety measures in place.

You claim a knowledge of manufacturing processes, but a ship refit is not akin to a manufacturing process. It is not chain of actions or combination of chains of actions leading to a single product as final result. It is more akin to an extreme building renovation project, with all the trades on top of one another trying to simultaneously carry out their part of the work while working around other trades. In the same compartment, the pipe fitters may want to replace the lube-oil piping at the same time the mechanics are opening the diesel engine to resurface the inside of the cylinders, while the electricians are updating the main switchboard, etc.

So the coordination to make all these actions as efficient as possible takes place in the engineering office, not at the ship level.

The comparison, to put it in manufacturing terms, would not be on how the Ford plant works in Mississauga, but how that plant looks like while they are retooling it, especially if they also pick that moment to renovate the building.


----------



## Spencer100

5S, one of the tools of TPS or Lean if you don't like Toyota .

1. Seiri (Sort)
2. Seiton (Systematic Arrangement)
3. Seiso (Shine or clean)
4. Seiketsu (Standardize)
5. Shitsuke (Sustain)


----------



## Spencer100

Thank you for you comment, I do understand that the refit is more of a "building" process that a "manufacturing" process.  My point is that many of the tools can be used in both. Ie, WCM, TPS, Six Sigma.  

Getting back to the pic, I have seen better yard side housekeeping in European yards.  I was just making a small point on one picture in one point in time.  Also taking into account the winter we have had.  

Hmm...maybe they can hire me as a consultant...... ;D :


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kind of amazing that given the aggressiveness of Russia that this topic has not been touched in a year.

With only one ship left to complete its refit (Toronto) has the Navy made any urgent requests to address the new higher threat environment?

Adding active component to towed sonar?

Replacing Phalanx with RAM?

It would seem that such discussions should be had and given that with certain projects being delayed that cash should be available for such prioirity projects.

Of note if someone other than me with infinitely more knowledge could propose what you would recommend to our new defense minister if given a forum, that would definitely be of interest as well.

Cheers all, Matthew.


----------



## PuckChaser

With construction supposed to be starting in 2020, any sort of major project (like adding those things) would likely take until mid 2020s to get off the ground and start work, meanwhile we'd be taking the first deliveries of the CSC at that point. If they didn't think they needed it in FELEX, they likely won't get it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With construction supposed to be starting in 2020, any sort of major project (like adding those things) would likely take until mid 2020s to get off the ground and start work, meanwhile we'd be taking the first deliveries of the CSC at that point. If they didn't think they needed it in FELEX, they likely won't get it.



On that note, is there not a precedent in European Navies to "upgrade as needed" then transfer those upgraded components to new hulls?

It would seem that if new towed arrays or RAM launchers are deemed to be required now, buying, integrating and training on upgraded Halifax Class prior to transferring those systems to CSC would make a lot of sense.

It's not like you would install RAM or new towed arrays on Halifaxes for 6-10 years, then just throw them out as the hulls are retired.  The components would still have minimum 15-25 year service lives - they would just be split over two hulls.


----------



## ringo

Canada should be trying to sell the Halifax class off at a rate of 1 per year, funds from sale used to bring forward CSC.

When CSC has totally replaced the Halifax's, the oldest of the new CSC should be offered for overseas sales, thus enable CSC construction to continue. I don't believe Canada will every find a overseas market for newly built Canada warships.


----------



## jollyjacktar

What makes you think anyone wants our tired and worn out hulls?  We couldn't interest anyone to buy some when they were a new design.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Mulroney then Chretien governments tried to sell to Saudis and failed:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19940302&id=YBwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XzgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5833,405252&hl=en

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A country like Chile or the Philippines might be interested.


----------



## Sub_Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Mulroney then Chretien governments tried to sell to Saudis and failed:
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19940302&id=YBwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XzgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5833,405252&hl=en
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



They were going up against the La Fayette at the time IIRC.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> They were going up against the La Fayette at the time IIRC.



Correct.

And even though the La Fayette's are less capable than the Halifax's, when you sell to countries like Saudi Arabia, looks count - unfortunately.

And Colin, I would add Argentina and even possibly Brazil to your list.


----------



## dapaterson

I suspect that given the tensions in the aerospace sector, Brazil would not be interested.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps, but the Niteroi's are getting to the end of their life and Brazil is going through a difficult economic time, so some times you put differences aside.

Besides, while Embraer is making noise like they are mad about the loans/funding to Bombardier, you may have noticed that the Brazilian government is not picking up the fight, except in the most subdued of ways, as it probably is getting the advice that there is nothing against the international commercial rules going on and they would lose (especially if their own participation in Embraer came to light ). Moreover, Embraer and the government of Brazil know that their competing airplane is not as technologically advanced (and in particular nowhere near the fuel economy and silence) as the C-Series and that the contract was won just as much on technology as price.


----------



## Underway

Bit-o-thread necromancy, but this puts a bow on the HCM/FELEX quite nicely at least from an engineering perspective.

This issue of the Maritime Engineering Journal is not a bad read if you're into that sort of thing!  Even comments from the shipyards on lessons learned, challenges and solutions.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> Bit-o-thread necromancy, but this puts a bow on the HCM/FELEX quite nicely at least from an engineering perspective.
> 
> This issue of the Maritime Engineering Journal is not a bad read if you're into that sort of thing!  Even comments from the shipyards on lessons learned, challenges and solutions.



great read, Underway.  Thanks for this!

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting the issue of cable management, the devil is very much in the details


----------



## calculus

Not sure if this falls into FELEX, HCM, or other, but interesting nonetheless. I believe this is the same radar selected for the JSS:









						Saab Sea Giraffe Radar selected for Canada's Halifax-class frigates - Naval News
					

Saab has signed a contract for multi-role Sea Giraffe AMB naval radars antenna kits, for the upgrade of the Royal Canadian Navy’s Halifax Class frigates. The contract also includes associated equipment and spare parts with an order value over SEK 300 million (USD 32 million).




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Underway

The HFX version of this radar is an upgrade of the SG-180 that is currently fitted on the HFX Class.  The antenna (and its associated environmental systems) is the only thing being replaced.  The rest of the radar below decks will essentially remain the same with some small adjustments due to the 3D nature of the new Ae (like processing cards and software).

JSS is getting a full bottom to top AMB, not a hybrid.

This radar was selected for the JSS with the anticipation that the HFX fleet would get it afterwords. But projects being what they are the HFX one was moved up and the JSS one was delayed.  Either way, there will be quite a bit of commonality in the fleet. Also, the new AMB being a 3D radar will improve tracking for data fusion on targets which will improve PKill for weapon systems.  The AMB is also very good for the SAC as it's going to give them better information about the ship's helicopter.  That's one of the reasons it was selected for JSS over other radars.


----------

