Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 391203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 449
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1425 on: February 14, 2019, 11:10:31 »
That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.)
And I'm hoping that if we don't go with the Sea Ceptor, that tactical sized Mk 41 cells, the smallest ones, can go in place of the Sea Ceptor launchers, which would make a big difference in my mind. Does anyone have more than an opinion of Sea Ceptor vs ESSM comparison, as to which is better?

Offline Thumper81

  • Guest
  • *
  • 290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1426 on: February 14, 2019, 13:40:26 »
I'm pretty certain we will not being going with Sea Ceptor as we are part of the Sea Sparrow Project and have been for decades.  Block 2 ESSM just did test firings down in Port Hueneme last summer and we've already put money into it.  Block 2 adds an active seeker to replace the semi-active one currently in the ESSM.  This will increase the capabilities of an already pretty good missile.  Still not an SM-2 but I'm sure we'll be seeing the return of the Standard missile in the Mk 41 launchers of the new ships. 

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1427 on: February 14, 2019, 16:43:26 »
AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.

Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.

Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.

I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,555
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1428 on: February 14, 2019, 16:56:59 »
Curious that about the CAMMs and the ESSMs.

I wonder how much impact that had on the pressure to buy the Type 26 rather than a Euro solution.

With an American boat the only option would have been the ESSMs.
With a European boat - CAMMs
With the British boat - both ESSMs and CAMMs are options

Options seem to be what our bureaucrats and politicians crave - more discussions, more meetings, more time, less accountability.

If I remember right the Euros squawked when Canada selected the ESSMs for the Halifax upgrade because they feared that it would prejudice the outcome of the design selection on the CSC.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thumper81

  • Guest
  • *
  • 290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1429 on: February 14, 2019, 23:05:25 »
AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.

Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.

Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.

I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.

I think ours is going to be more in line with Australian version with 32 cells of Mk 41 VLS.  This would allow the ship to have 32 ESSM for point and 24 Standard missiles for area air defence(I think that 32 cell strike Mk 41 and an 8 cell self-defence Mk 41 cells would be better allowing for 32 missiles of both types but compared with our only 16 ESSM's now, I'll take it).  As for a CMS compatibility issue with Sea Ceptor vs. ESSM, the fire-control system dictates that more than CMS.  The Kiwi's have selected Sea Ceptor(replacing the RIM-7 which has the exact same interface as ESSM) to work with CMS on their upgrades for their ANZAC's.

As for European squaking about our selection of ESSM over their missiles, it was never going to happen as we've been part of NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium for decades and have been investing in it for a long time.  The ESSM upgrade was separate from the mid-life upgrade of the frigates.

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1430 on: February 15, 2019, 01:49:29 »
Probably you're right, I may have messed CMS with fire-control... for me (not a professional on that field) it's all "software". And probably I am again wrong with this last sentence  ::) ;D

In reply to C-Pook, I have not seen the bids, but would bet that Navantia-Saab had offered systems ready for ESSMs since nor Spain nor Australia use Sea Ceptor (CAMM): F-100 & Hobarts  use ESSM.

Edited (added): actually CAMM is british mainly, more than "european". France & Italy rely their air defence on the Aster missiles family.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 10:23:44 by JMCanada »

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,887
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1431 on: February 15, 2019, 10:39:52 »
That's funny. I thought became Aster, as the T45's are equipped with them, no?

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,887
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1432 on: February 15, 2019, 10:41:24 »
In any case I don't see the Brits mixing up their missile type for anyone. They probably just move the Harpoon to the Type 26 in the end, and ditch the rear vls. Maybe not...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,555
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1433 on: February 15, 2019, 11:41:57 »
Looking at foredecks of the three variants, specifically at the "B-Gun" position where the missiles are located forard of the bridge, it appears to me from the imagery that the Aussies and the Brits are both planning to put their Harpoon/Harpoon-replacement Anti-Ship Missiles on the foredeck while the Canadian imagery shows the foredeck clear (as well as the space abaft the funnel).

On the other hand the Canadians and the Aussies both seem to have Quad Harpoons on top of the Mission Bay / Boat Deck.


Aussie 26



Brit 26



Canadian 26

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline serger989

  • New Member
  • **
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1434 on: February 15, 2019, 11:49:19 »
In all the concepts/models I have seen, I have only seen 1 scale model with CIWS, the others have none. Makes me think they will only be outfitted onto 3 ships or something.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 12:34:18 by serger989 »

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,027
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1435 on: February 15, 2019, 13:15:49 »
I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.

"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,555
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1436 on: February 15, 2019, 13:26:11 »
I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.

Seen Lumber and acknowledged.

And they will look different again after separation into flights and life-extensions.

I think the point is that the platform can support multiple configurations with bolt-on (even Stanflex-type) configurations - MGs, Autocannons, Phalanx, Sea-Ram, Harpoon, NSMs, Chaff dispensers, CAMM or ESSM launch buckets.   Both the command system and the hull form can manage a great degree of flexibility to suit operational needs.  The presence of the Mission Bay and its various cargoes also attest to the ability of a combat ship being able to manage shifts in displacement as cargoes are moved from outboard port to outboard starboard above the water line: a capability that seems to have evaded the designers of the USNs LCS but has been managed successfully by the Danes' Absaloms.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,027
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1437 on: February 15, 2019, 13:43:18 »
For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,887
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1438 on: February 15, 2019, 15:55:03 »
 :rofl:
Yes, like Dr Evil's chair...

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 182,421
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,974
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1439 on: February 15, 2019, 16:09:29 »
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1440 on: February 15, 2019, 22:48:07 »
For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?

Chairs? we gave you a enclosed bridge!! Young spoiled pups!!!! Back in the days of sail and steam we did.....blah, blah,blah

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1441 on: February 18, 2019, 16:30:52 »
Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  ::)

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,555
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1442 on: February 18, 2019, 16:49:50 »
Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  ::)

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/

Do we really want the CSC to be within 11,000 meters of a submarine? (The range of the deck-launched Mk46)

On the other hand - launching M46/54s from a CH-148, or a RHIB or Orca XLAUV deployed from the Mission Bay on the CSC - perhaps that is an alternative to VLS-ASROC?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,167
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1443 on: February 18, 2019, 17:26:43 »
The subs intent is to get well within that range, it would seem that to have a closer in system is just as important as the longer range system. So what would the response be for a ship equipped with VLS launched torps that detects a sub within 2 km, say right in the middle of a task force and needs to kill it without shooting any friendlies?

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1444 on: February 18, 2019, 17:52:49 »
Of course there are other means for ASW , but why refuse to install some torpedo tubes as well? As cited in the article Hobarts do have them but Type 45 destroyers don't.
I am of the opinion that  being they onboard, the CSCs would benefit from a wider set of tools available.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 182,421
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,974
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1445 on: February 18, 2019, 19:01:43 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

This is what I think about with every 'update' to either the JSS or CSC...

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,555
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1446 on: February 18, 2019, 21:42:00 »
Is it too provocative to note that the last scene with the drawing being stamped showed the design approved by AOC?  :whistle:

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 449
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1447 on: February 19, 2019, 10:56:04 »
Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  ::)

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/
And/or if we decide at some point to put the anti-ship missiles in the cells. If we do purchase the F-35 and then go with the JSM, they can go in the cells, at which point 32 already isn't enough, just saying.

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1448 on: February 23, 2019, 16:37:16 »
Looks like the radar will be a LM radar (probably a derivative of the LRDR, and perhaps related to this: https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lockheed-indra-develop-s-band-aesa-radar-spanish-navy/), and AEGIS will also be included, in some form or other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_EU486kb8

Watch from 4:30 to 5:10.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,887
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1449 on: February 23, 2019, 18:06:19 »
Good catch!