Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 428307 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1525 on: May 16, 2019, 15:59:59 »
I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.

Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars. 

From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.

All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**

I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was the only compliant bid

Solid State Radar

** rough calculations, big assumptions**

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 86
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1526 on: May 17, 2019, 04:27:11 »
Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars. 

From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.

All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**

I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was the only compliant bid

Solid State Radar

** rough calculations, big assumptions**

Looks like a very similar technology to the CEA radars, at least in terms of scalability through the use of "tiles" or "bricks".  This discusses CEA's first generation CEAFAR as fitted to the RAN ANZACs under the ASMD upgrade: http://www.cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2011-0009.pdf
« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 07:06:44 by RDBZ »

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1528 on: May 25, 2019, 22:46:05 »
Lockheed PPT on some of the CSC requirements.

Some acronym help

CIADS = Close in Air Defence System
TCM = Torpedo Counter Measure
FCL = Fire Control Link?  Link is a guess, but it makes sense if you want to update missile with new information in flight
IRST = Infra Red Search and Track
LFA = low frequency active

Full PPT link here


« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 22:54:34 by Underway »

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1529 on: May 27, 2019, 21:04:09 »
From behind the paywall:

Quote
With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, Jane's understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system.

Full article here:

https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate   :whistle:).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1530 on: May 28, 2019, 17:51:33 »
The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41.
Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament.

Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.
Living the lean life

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1531 on: May 28, 2019, 18:40:05 »
The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41.
Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament.

Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.

Surface to surface: Harpoon is on the way out and are also not a Lockheed product so I suspect they won't be part of the package.  NSM is what I think is the quad packed missiles on top of the flex deck.  Also the LRASM is capable of being launched from a Mk41 so that's a possibility as well.

Naval Strike: TLAM is where I think this is going to end up.  Perhaps the JSM.  Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch.  If your targets as that close though wouldn't it be better to use the 127mm?

Secondary gun: gotta be the 30mm's.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 18:47:43 by Underway »

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1532 on: May 28, 2019, 19:12:32 »
"Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "

Unmanned swarming?
Living the lean life

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1533 on: May 28, 2019, 21:05:09 »
From behind the paywall:

Full article here:

https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate   :whistle:).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.

Question re:Phalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope?

Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1534 on: May 28, 2019, 21:05:46 »
"Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "

Unmanned swarming?

FAC= Fast Attack Craft
FIAC= Fast Inshore Attack Craft which are essentially speedboats

Swarming for sure, though manned currently.  The best defence against both of these is a Hellfire equipped Helo (which we do not have...yet.... though that is top 10 on the future upgrades for the Cyclone they tell me) as FAC have little AAD and FIAC have only MANPADS options.  After that its Longbows/127mm from the ship, then 30mm, then 50 cal.  Personally FIAC with AT missiles seem a greater challenge.  Longbow can hit them hard beyond or at their own ranges max ranges.  That's one of the reasons they developed them for the LCS. With the 127mm not sure of the accuracy on such a fast moving target, but new ammunition types with IR seeking/GPS guiding etc... would certainly be very useful.  30mm for closer in defence against them and any WBIED threats.

I can certainly see a Longbow loadout in a FAC/FIAC contested combat environment for the ExLS.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1535 on: May 28, 2019, 21:25:22 »
Question re:Phalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope?

I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.

Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM. 

Quote
Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?

The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 21:30:21 by Underway »

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,176
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,038
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1536 on: May 28, 2019, 23:14:20 »
A standard CIWS has a magazine of about 1580 rounds.  Divided into 60 round bursts, that works out to 26 bursts. 

Fired in 200 rd bursts, that's just 8 bursts.

A RAM carries 21 in its pack, and has longer range.

I think I'd prefer the RAM...

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1537 on: May 29, 2019, 00:10:25 »
Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system.
I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....
Living the lean life

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,679
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1538 on: May 29, 2019, 01:05:41 »
Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system.
I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CPTI3ndlA
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1539 on: May 29, 2019, 01:14:03 »
Painfully slow! Calm waters on a 90,000 tonne stable base. Can't see that happening on a frigate or destroyer in the middle of a fight!!
Living the lean life

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 167
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1540 on: May 29, 2019, 07:27:30 »
Quote
Under the CSC evaluation framework, bidders were incentivised to submit a value proposition that would maximise Canadian participation in CSC design-phase engineering/ integration services, and also seek to incorporate high-technology Canadian systems and equipment into the ships. Lockheed Martin Canada's value proposition commits to performing at least 58 per cent of the design phase engineering/integration services work in Canada.
https://www.janes.com/article/88853/full-steam-ahead-cs19d1

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,176
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,038
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1541 on: May 29, 2019, 08:06:57 »
A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.

I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,413
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1542 on: May 29, 2019, 09:40:30 »
Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1543 on: May 29, 2019, 10:09:31 »
A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.

I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.

Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.

One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.

Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?

If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1544 on: May 29, 2019, 11:47:13 »
Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.

One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.

If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.

With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1545 on: May 29, 2019, 12:22:30 »
With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?

Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.

The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?

The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,176
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,038
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1546 on: May 29, 2019, 16:40:10 »

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.



"ZIPPO  4 BASED ON CERANO"


There is nothing new under the sun...even with the upgraded CMS, automatic reconfiguration of the system based on the threat is still a thing.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1547 on: May 29, 2019, 16:45:22 »
Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.

The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?

The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.

That’s really interesting stuff. I guess as a layman, I just assumed there was a rigid doctrine regarding inbound threat management. I always thought it would be something like: if threat X was detected at point Y (being earliest possibility of intercept) then weapon system with furthest range (ESSM in a CPF) was almost an automatic reaction. Then if/as contact closes you would use progressively closer envelope systems (57mm, then CIWS, then cutlery thrown from bridge wing etc). But from what you’ve written here, it seems that every engagement bears scrutiny and the response has to be fluid. It makes sense being the real world, but I was always under the impression that responses were hard and fast to avoid confusion at a time critical point. My hat is off to whoever has the cool head and grace under pressure to deal with that.

Thanks for the complete way you responded as well. These threads go a long way to put into context how complex life can be in the RCN.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1548 on: May 29, 2019, 17:29:27 »
I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.

Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM. 

The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.

I know it’s unlikely, but I’d prefer the secondary cannon to be the 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun. That would be exceptional coverage for many different threats.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,413
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1549 on: May 29, 2019, 18:40:06 »
That 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun would seem to be a good fit across the fleet, the CSC,AOS and MCDV's