• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,927
Points
1,360
I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?
Fair enough, although methinks things are moving fast enough now that configuration control of publicly-released material may also be an issue.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?
That datasheet came out right about when the PBO was releasing its evaluation of the project cost, including the other options that might have been available and their costs.

When you realize that suddenly everything makes more sense.

To spell it out I suspect the following. They weren't ready to release the design, but in defence of the project, they were basically forced to release what they had. This was in order to ensure the public (read government backbenchers) was informed of how their money was being spent. As the design was in flux there was potential for some change or inaccuracies, but that was deemed secondary to requirements.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
36
Points
430
That datasheet came out right about when the PBO was releasing its evaluation of the project cost, including the other options that might have been available and their costs.

When you realize that suddenly everything makes more sense.

To spell it out I suspect the following. They weren't ready to release the design, but in defence of the project, they were basically forced to release what they had. This was in order to ensure the public (read government backbenchers) was informed of how their money was being spent. As the design was in flux there was potential for some change or inaccuracies, but that was deemed secondary to requirements.
The cost of any design would be prohibive. It’d be cheaper now to ride around with an empty 8 pack than design it out. Also, like the FFCP, HMG is simply out of time.
 

MapleForce

Guest
Reaction score
2
Points
130
Hi everyone, new member here. I'm not a CAF service member or vet, but I've had a keen interest in our military for quite a while and I enjoy keeping up with procurement programs, as disappointing as they may be at times. I've been closely following the CSC program and I just came here to say that I think people are getting carried away with the VLS thing.

Lockheed Martin 3D models have always shown 24 cells, even after 32 VLS cells were confirmed on the factsheet (which btw also appears to depict 24 cells if you look closely). It seems this new model is only meant to show off the new mast design that will be housing LM's very own SPY-7 AESA. As you can see below, 24 cells is status quo for LM's 3D designs, so don't read to much into it.

csc-dynamic-beam-1750.jpg.pc-adaptive.1920.medium.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Hi everyone, new member here. I'm not a CAF service member or vet, but I've had a keen interest in our military for quite a while and I enjoy keeping up with procurement programs, as disappointing as they may be at times. I've been closely following the CSC program and I just came here to say that I think people are getting carried away with the VLS thing.

Lockheed Martin 3D models have always shown 24 cells, even after 32 VLS cells were confirmed on the factsheet (which btw also appears to depict 24 cells if you look closely). It seems this new model is only meant to show off the new mast design that will be housing LM's very own SPY-7 AESA. As you can see below, 24 cells is status quo for LM's 3D designs, so don't read to much into it.

This is true. But if we didn't read into it this thread would be only 27 pages and way more boring!!!

The actual 3DM made of wood and plastic at shows had both 32 and 24VLS. I think the issue is we are extrapolating to the mission set and trying to see if this is a problem or not. I personally would like more VLS but I understand that the CMS is actually what fights the ship, and if that, the sensors and then the effectors are all aligned you won't need those extra 8 cells as much.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,418
Points
1,060
Either way this ship will be a significant leap forward from the CFP's for the RCN. I suspect that we get a lot of requests to take part in Task forces and the biggest challenge is not burning out the crews. Hopefully the accommodations also improve making life at sea better for the sailor, while respecting Damage Control needs.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,927
Points
1,360
As (many) others have said, it is highly likely that qualified personnel levels will be the LIMFAC for this fleet for much of its life…
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
123
Points
630
Might be the DEFSEC Atlantic 2021 display. Funny how the model still has 32 cells, and the big poster sized graphic shows 24. I imagine this will generate some interesting discussion at the conference.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
The physical model is the old version. The image on the wall is the updated version with the mast having all the equipment after a preliminary Integrated Topside Design. I expect Lockheed will confirm the 24 VLS should they be asked.

Mast space is so premium. I also expect that there will be fore and aft navigation radars as that mast blocks nav radar LoS forward. JSS has four nav radars to get around the mast/stack LoS issues.

An example of how the physical models don't change is that the AOPS one doesn't have that particular gun and the mast arrangement is very different regarding antenna placement.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
That mast. Is that part of the Thales Integrated Mast family?


The radars in the Integrated Mast are non-rotating, four-faced active phased array radars, which in itself is a major performance enhancement. As the four faces operate simultaneously, the radars achieve four times the time on target achieved by a rotating radar. The surface surveillance radar (Seastar) was developed especially for this purpose and it is capable of detecting and tracking small objects (e.g. divers' head) between the waves, contributing enormously to situational awareness in littoral environments.

All systems are installed in the Mast by Thales in Hengelo. Subsequently the Mast is tested as one system. Not before it fully complies with the customer's specifications is it transported to the shipyard. There, the Integrated Mast is simply bolted or welded to the ship, hooked up to the power supply, coolant system and data transmission and is operational in only two or three weeks time. Compared to the one year that is necessary to install, integrate and test all the separate systems, this is a huge time and money saver, for Navy as well as shipyard.

A further aspect that reduces costs is the decrease of maintenance. Not only do non-rotating radars require far less maintenance, but the little maintenance that is required can be performed in the protected, sheltered environment of the Mast, meaning that it is no longer necessary to wait for repairs until weather conditions are safe enough.

The Integrated Mast is not just one product. It is a series of Masts of various sizes, each one intended for a different class of naval vessel. Introduced in December 2007, the I-Mast 400 is the first member of the I-Mast family. This system will be installed on the Patrol Ships for the Royal Netherlands Navy that are presently being built The first one is scheduled to be operational late 2010. The I-Mast 100, introduced in September 2009, is the second member of the I-Mast family. This system is designed for smaller, corvette-sized vessels.

The type of systems in the Mast is completely up to the customer. Although the Integrated Mast for the Holland class OPVs for the Royal Netherlands Navy contains mostly Thales systems, it will be possible to use customer-furnished or third party systems in a Thales Integrated Mast.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
That mast. Is that part of the Thales Integrated Mast family?

Nope. Not a single Thales product is on that mast. Thales was involved with the Alion bid.

The main things on that mast are the SPY-7 AESA (LMC), AESA illuminator (MBDA), RAVEN ECM (LMC), EOIR and IRST (L3), ESM (MBDA and Electronica).
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
None of the sensors are Thales. Understood.

On the other hand the design, assembly and construction appear to the untutored eye to incorporate a lot of the same design concepts and elements.

Are other companies building bolt on integrated modular masts?
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,133
Points
1,110
How many of those model ship can we buy? Fill up the Theodore Tugboat set with them and intimidate the world with imagery of our might!
I found this on Lockheed Martin’s Twitter page. It looks like 4x8 vls but with them turned sideways On the wall art

View attachment 66721
How many of those model ships can we buy? Film them in the Theodore Tugboat set and publish the imagery to impress the world with our might!

I will show myself out of the thread.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
How many of those model ship can we buy? Fill up the Theodore Tugboat set with them and intimidate the world with imagery of our might!

How many of those model ships can we buy? Film them in the Theodore Tugboat set and publish the imagery to impress the world with our might!

I will show myself out of the thread.
If they are to appear in Theodore they need a face, which means LMC will charge probably about a cool million for the engineering design change.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
None of the sensors are Thales. Understood.

On the other hand the design, assembly and construction appear to the untutored eye to incorporate a lot of the same design concepts and elements.

Are other companies building bolt on integrated modular masts?
Most modern masts all look like each other if you want an AESA radar in them. It limits your design space significantly. The reason US masts for example look different is that they don't have the SPY radar on the mast, it's part of the superstructure.

As far as bolt on integrated I don't know. Thales really only sold that mast to the Netherlands and no one else. An integrated mast is great for the sensors that it comes with. As you can see from the CSC its got multiple sensors and effectors that needed to be integrated into it. This means a custom job is a much better solution.
 
Top