Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 250349 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #925 on: March 01, 2018, 20:04:43 »
I’m curious to see if the Canadianized version finds a spot for Harpoons. The UK version isn’t supposed to be equipped with an ASM, I believe, until the British and French come up with a VLS launches LRASM.

ASM is a requirement of the program.  Best guesses is that the Type 26 bid is the Naval Strike missile, the Navinata bid is the Saab RBS-15, and the Alion bid is Harpoons.  All have their pros and cons.  NSM uses IR/EO homing and is very hard to detect but a smaller warhead relative to the other two.  RBS is the big daddy of three and has the longest range and biggest warhead and active radar guidance.  Harpoon has a slightly shorter range of the NSM and has a slightly larger warhead and of course active radar terminal guidance, but is a proven missile system (some would say long in the tooth) compared to the other two.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,435
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #926 on: March 01, 2018, 21:12:15 »
These aren't SSM missiles above the mission bay? They look too big to be MASS, Irras etc.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 39
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #927 on: March 01, 2018, 21:19:30 »
These aren't SSM missiles above the mission bay? They look too big to be MASS, Irras etc.

Either they got the proportions wrong for the AShM or, i'd guess, some sort of anti AShM or anti-swarming missiles. For instances the Freedom class FFG(X) has Longbow Hellfire missiles up front.

MTS

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #928 on: March 01, 2018, 23:39:32 »
Full on speculation but if you google Naval Strike missile it looks a lot like those are the launchers for them on that image. Could be wrong though.  It's definitely not a Harpoon, Exocet or Saab missile.  Running out of options picked the NSM.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,774
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #929 on: March 01, 2018, 23:59:21 »
My understanding was that Harpoon was pretty much on its way out as a front line anti-shipping missile. No?

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Guest
  • *
  • 690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #930 on: March 02, 2018, 04:03:17 »
It certainly looks like an NSM in the rendering. Here is a screenshot image of NSM launchers on the NANSEN from Norway. Shape and size are consistent with the rendering on the Type 26 offering.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 437
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #931 on: March 02, 2018, 11:56:27 »
This is supposed to be ready by 2030 and will be able to launch from either the MK41 or the Sylver launcher, as can the JSM/NSM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Link isn't cooperating so just have to select "Perseus (missile)" a second time once inside.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 12:20:43 by AlexanderM »

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #932 on: March 02, 2018, 14:37:43 »
My understanding was that Harpoon was pretty much on its way out as a front line anti-shipping missile. No?

That's what I hear as well.  Problem is you need something to replace it with.  I think it will be in service for a while still in many navies. 

There is no reason why different bids can't have the same missile system.  Anti ship missiles are really easy to install onboard compared to most other types of weapons.  Just bolt on, plug in and go.  Really all they need from the ship is, power, nav and attitude info to ensure they go in the right direction, and launch at the right angle.  The rest of the ASuW missile systems are usually stand alone or easy to integrate in an open architecture (for lack of a better way to explain, essentially their own window on the combat management system).  Any new missile will meet the specifications I'm sure.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 154,377
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,243
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 21 YOA
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #933 on: March 04, 2018, 07:35:54 »
A nice video about the Mk. 41 VLS slated for the Type 26.

https://youtu.be/rWI6ihQcU14
Annoying Liberals, apparently I'm doing a good job of it =)

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,435
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #934 on: March 04, 2018, 15:35:33 »
Was the show floor module on the right the strike length version or the mod for the CAMM ER?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,885
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #935 on: March 05, 2018, 14:38:26 »
Will Justin Trudeau allow a missile defence capability on CSCs?

Quote
PPA to bring BMD Capability to Italian Navy in 2024

The Italian Navy (Marina Militare) will get Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability in 2024 with the delivery of its first PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente d'Altura or Offshore Multipurpose Patrol Ship) vessel in the "Full" configuration. Captain Francesco Gennaro Esposito, Italian Navy General Staff (MARISTAT 7°) future vessels ship design and CMS department, confirmed the information to Navy Recognition during a recent visit at the Leonardo naval test and integration facility near Rome.

"The PPA Full version will be able to embark and use the Aster 30 Block 1NT that is the anti-ballistic missile with the support of the radar system of the future LHD in terms of early warning detection" said Captain Esposito.

The long range detection of ballistic missiles will be realized with the L-band AESA radar based on gallium nitride (GaN) technology which allows the radar to have better performance in terms of range. The missile tracking capability will be provided by the C-band element of the new dual-band radar developed especially by Leonardo for the PPA.

An MBDA Italy representative explained that PPA Full will be able to detect and engage ballistic missiles on their own or in cooperation with other early warning sources via Link 16. He added that PPA Light+ variant could potentially have that BMD capability but the first real BMD capable ship for the Italian Navy will be the first PPA Full variant to be delivered in 2024 [lots more detail follows]...
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/march-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6008-ppa-to-bring-bmd-capability-to-italian-navy-in-2024.html


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #936 on: March 05, 2018, 15:26:03 »
Depends on how you define Ballistic Missiles.  The CAF definition is different then the media's and the RCN's definition is a refinement of the CAF one. 

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #937 on: March 05, 2018, 16:27:44 »
Does anyone have any thoughts on the Italian use of the 76mm Strales system as their CIWS?

I've seen a video on how it's supposed to work, but have no idea if it can do what it's supposed to when chips are on the table....


M.  :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 39
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #938 on: March 09, 2018, 14:29:51 »

Offline Uzlu

  • New Member
  • **
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #939 on: March 20, 2018, 07:40:02 »
Quote
Careful consideration: Positioning the next Canadian Frigates for the Fights of the Future

The process to choose the winning design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) is well underway, with the final selection expected sometime this year. We don’t know much about the exact requirements for the CSC but the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) flagship strategy document, Leadmark 2050 , is clear: while the CSC will undertake a variety of mission types, it will be designed primarily to operate in a high-end warfighting environment. That makes sense since a ship designed to fight pirates and provide disaster relief wouldn’t fare well against modern anti-ship cruise missiles or torpedoes.

Operating in a high-end environment requires a combat management system (CMS) that tightly integrates the ship’s weapons, sensors, communications and data links to allow it to defend itself and take the fight to the enemy. This is especially true for air defence, as the nature of contemporary air threats means that the crew often has minutes (or seconds if the threat is supersonic) to react to a missile that comes over the horizon. The CMS is key in this situation, as it can gather and display data from the ship’s sensors, activate kinetic or non-kinetic countermeasures, and cue incoming threats much faster than a human can.

There are three broad categories of air defence capabilities that the government should consider (and prioritize) when deciding on the CSC’s CMS/design: short- to medium-range; long-range; and ballistic missile defence (BMD). Having an effective short- to medium-range air defence capability is perhaps the most important in terms of ship survivability and should be prioritized. But being able to detect and engage threats at longer ranges will likely become almost as important as threats become more advanced and the CSC becomes responsible for the air defence of deployed land forces. So, decisions made on the CMS now will likely have long-term effects down the road.

Missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the Aster 15, with ranges of around 50 kilometres, will likely form the core of the CSC’s short-to medium-range air defence capability, so having a CMS that works with them will likely be critical. Both Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS330—the CMS on the Halifax-class frigates—and Atlas Elektronik’s ANCS CMS are already integrated with ESSM. So is 9LV, the CMS offered by Navantia and SAAB Australia in their bid, which is currently serving on a number of Australian naval vessels. The combination of 9LV, Australia’s CEAFAR radar, and ESSM on Australia’s ANZAC-class frigates is assessed by some defence analysts to be the best short- to medium-range naval air defence system in the world. Interestingly, CMS330 is also in the process of being integrated with MBDA’s new Sea Ceptor short-range air defence missile on New Zealand’s ANZAC-class frigates.

In terms of providing a long-range air defence, things get more complicated. Two of three systems on offer (CMS330 and 9LV) have not yet been integrated with a long-range air defence missile system like SM-2 or SM-6, missiles with ranges of over 150 kilometres. That fact is more of an indictment on the CAF’s requirements than on the systems themselves; but it’s strange that there may be no requirement for such a capability right off the bat, given the growing importance of long-range air defence in both the ship and area defence roles the government has stated the CSC will fulfill. That’s not to say longer-ranged missile systems cannot be integrated into 9LV and CMS330 in the future—quite the opposite in fact, given their modularity—but they’re not integrated “off-the-shelf” like they are in ANCS. Systems integration is a complex process and additional integration increases the risk of cost overruns and delays.

The Australian Future Frigate faces the same problem. Australia’s solution was to “combine” (in some manner) the 9LV/CEAFAR radar combination with the US Navy’s (USN) Aegis CMS to facilitate the integration of future US missile systems such as the SM-6 to give the Future Frigate greater long-range air defence capabilities. By “combining” 9LV/CEAFAR and Aegis, Australia is hedging the future viability of its Future Frigates on the continued ability of the USN to be on the cutting edge of naval weapons and sensors technology. Having Aegis on its ships alleviates the Royal Australian Navy of the burden (and cost) of integrating new American weapons systems and sensors into its own CMS architecture. It’s unclear as to whether Navantia and SAAB Australia are offering the 9LV/Aegis CMS combination in their CSC bid, although the CEAFAR radar is included.

The Canadian government must think carefully about its approach to ‘futureproofing’ the CSC to ensure that the ships can be upgraded as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible in the future. If Aegis is included in the Navantia/SAAB Australia bid and is selected, Canada would be able lessen future integration costs through collaboration with the US and Australia. If Aegis isn’t included, then Canada would likely be responsible for integrating future weapons systems and sensors into its CMS architecture no matter which CMS is chosen. That approach increases the risk of delays and cost overruns down the road. Now Canada doesn’t have to go down the same route as Australia to “futureproof”, it could instead choose to install a European “family” of weapons and sensors on the CSC to lessen the future acquisition costs.

Another potential aspect of ‘futureproofing’ is ballistic missile defence (BMD). Currently, the US and Japan are the only countries with an effective sea-based capability to track and engage theatre ballistic missiles using a special configuration of the Aegis CMS and the SM-3 missile. Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates—the design on which Alion Science and Technology/Damen Shipbuilding’s bid is based—have demonstrated the ability to track ballistic missiles but lack the ability to engage them, and other countries are incorporating BMD into their future ships. Should the RCN need such a capability, it’s likely that many of the future weapons and sensors installed on the CSC will have some inherent ability to conduct BMD. However, none of the CMSs offered have the ability to do so “off-the-shelf” and integrating such a capability would entail additional costs and trade-offs in terms of potential mission loadouts.

Given the nature of threats the CSC is likely to face in the future, careful deliberation is needed when deciding which CMS best meets the CAF’s short- and long-term requirements. The risk profile of each CMS on offer is likely to be an important factor in positioning the CSC for future upgrades. None of the options are risk-free, but good planning should ensure that Canada is able to field an effective, upgradeable CSC that can fulfill the government’s requirements now and in the future.
 
Disclosure: Lockheed Martin Canada is a corporate sponsor of the CDA Institute.

Christopher Cowan is a Research Analyst and Editor at the CDA Institute.
https://cdainstitute.ca/careful-consideration-positioning-the-next-canadian-frigates-for-the-fights-of-the-future/

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 60,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,885
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #940 on: March 22, 2018, 12:40:39 »
Just a reminder that BAE's Type 26 frigate design (only under construction now) in running for Canadian Surface Combatant:

Quote
UK hires team to stop destroyers from breaking down at sea

An industry team led by BAE Systems has secured a £160 million (U.S. $224 million) deal with the British Ministry of Defence to help fix long-running propulsion problems that have blighted the reliability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer fleet.

BAE, along with partners BMT Defence Services and Cammell Laird, are to undertake what the MoD calls the power improvement project, or PIP, which principally will see the anti-air warships’ two existing diesel generators replaced with three larger units.

The warships have suffered a number of embarrassing breakdowns at sea due to problems with the propulsion system during operations in high temperatures, undermining confidence in the reliability of the six destroyers.

The worst of the problems saw ships losing all electrical power and propulsion while at sea.

“Our aim is to rapidly restore command confidence in the power and propulsion system of the Type 45 fleet, demonstrate value for money, and safeguard vital skills for future generations of warship support,” said David Mitchard, managing director at BAE Systems’ Maritime Services...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/21/uk-hires-team-to-stop-destroyers-from-breaking-down-at-sea/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #941 on: March 22, 2018, 16:28:47 »
Just a reminder that BAE's Type 26 frigate design (only under construction now) in running for Canadian Surface Combatant:

Mark
Ottawa

Of the Type 26 bid for the CSC the propulsion system is the least of my concerns.  It's a similar system to the current UK frigates and not a new all electrical type system that the Type 45 uses.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,435
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #942 on: March 28, 2018, 19:43:27 »
32 mk41 vls in this little video:

https://twitter.com/CSCHomeTeam/status/966785222388875265

That’s what is shown in this video as well at 3:07-3:09. — https://youtu.be/xFVZ_rS9rH4

The RN Type 26 will be fitted with 24 cell in 3 x 8 cell Mk 41 modules: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/02/british-type-26-frigates-to-get-lockheed-missile-launcher/

Overall, the proposed Canadian variant appears to be longer, wider, more heavily armed (at least from the information available).

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 79
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #943 on: April 20, 2018, 08:10:37 »

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 39
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #944 on: April 20, 2018, 13:35:38 »
Whiskey,

I didn't see a size difference, but if there is one it would start with power capactiy. 30 knots is a minimum to zigzag around with a CBG. The type 26 is only good for 26. That will be done in the curing process, if it is not done already.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 110,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,294
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 79
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #946 on: April 20, 2018, 15:39:04 »
Have to wonder if the French are having similar staffing issues like the RN is currently experiencing.  To 'give up ' two fully operational Frigates, they must either have some excess capacity somewhere that they'll use these crews for, or, they have an overall shortage of trained crews and this will allow them to fully staff their remaining ships.