• 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
8,283
Points
1,360
NavyShooter, yeah…most people’s “what you can’t see, can’t hurt you” attitude has never meshed well with the latent EW dude deep within…earlier RWRs were even cooler because you could hear the IF of the raw signal and even guess the radar mode from the PRF. 🤓

Where it comes to HPRF (and associated radiators), I like Ronald Reagan’s words about the Soviets, re: Star Wars: “Trust, but verify!” 😉
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
As a guy who was fairly well trained in the RADHAZ area, I'll observe that the RCN has had a learning curve on this...over the life of our Halifax Class ships anyhow.

When I was on the Gatineau, I was once standing on the bridge-top, manning a pair of binoculars that were linked to the gunnery system for manual fire control direction and firing. I was told in no uncertain terms "Do not press the red button" and myself and the other lookout were up there standing with the OOW about 15 -20 feet ahead of the fire control director that was linked to the gun - ever hear of side-lobe radiation? Yeah...I've been radiated.

Working on the bridge of a Halifax class ship and you hear the buzz of the VHF radios every time the SPS-49 swept...good times...keep those bridge wing doors open because it's 'safe'...right?

Watching the operators lock up a seagull and turn on the CWI....birdie went "splash" very quickly.

The new rules had a 50X safety factor built into them. So effectively, if there was dangerous radiation being emitted at a distance of 2 cm, you had to be 1m away from that transmitter.

The out of bounds areas are now to be clearly marked, and it's surprising just how much of the ships is placed out of bounds when you're transmitting on an active jammer system. Or on a 1000W HF transmit system.

Things may seem hard-over on RADHAZ safety, but having buried several friends to Cancer...including a buddy who 'coincidentally' spent a 6 month deployment building a model ship on a work-bench while at sea during a deployment...that was within a matter of feet of the Cobalt-60 source in the SPS-49...well...yeah....that big brain tumor that killed him was purely a coincidence...

My personal thoughts are that because of the lack of training, and lack of a visual 'danger' cue, there needs to be more care taken. Add some automated lights to the danger/hazard areas indicating no-go zones.

Few minor nerdy quibbles. The safety factor is actually 100x. We take the agency numbers which are doubled and then multiply by 50. So in your example, the HERP number is 2cm then multiplied by 50, it's actually 1cm doubled (for safety from the rating agency). Then RCN gets it and applies a 50x safety factor.

IMHO that's far too restrictive when the actual chance for getting burns is when you are touching the antenna. This is the same mentality for turning off cell phones when transferring ammunition. There is no way a cell phone is ever going to affect ammunition inside its coffin/canister. If that were the case the army would never be able to fire any of their rounds due to the plethora of EM fields in their vehicles.

Secondly, you can't get cancer from non-ionizing radiation (*some research shows that consistent long-term exposure might increase the chances of cancer). It's a very common misunderstanding, you get cooked/burned like in a microwave instead.

But I completely understand the pendulum swing. There is a reason that they do EM survey's now to find out where and what the hot zones are going to be. There are certain emitters that you don't want to be anywhere near when they are transmitting. And of course, the effects on other equipment (like cranes) or ammunition are different than people.
 
Last edited:

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
NavyShooter, yeah…most people’s “what you can’t see, can’t hurt you” attitude has never meshed well with the latent EW dude deep within…earlier RWRs were even cooler because you could hear the IF of the raw signal and even guess the radar mode from the PRF. 🤓

Where it comes to HPRF (and associated radiators), I like Ronald Reagan’s words about the Soviets, re: Star Wars: “Trust, but verify!” 😉
I’ve been in the Delta Hover Astern, waiting to land on a Ticonderoga Class cruiser that assured me they were Radhaz safe. Fun fact: the screen on my tacnav computer was pulsing in time with the SPS-49 radar they used to have above the SPY-1, so I call BS.

Another fun fact: if you put the radar on the old Sea King into standby and there was a SPY-1 radar anywhere within your EM horizon, you would get a bearing strobe. Poor man’s ESM!

As to Underway’s point and Cdn Radhaz rules: they are good in principle (I do not want to ever stand In front of a fire control radar or hug a HF antenna), but the rules around fueling and moving ammo are just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,291
Points
1,090
Note I referenced the Cancer with respect to a Cobalt 60 source within the SPS-49 inside Radar 2, not the non-ionizing coming from the antennaes or passing through the waveguides.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
Looks like some progress on the Aussie Hunter class, with the first test block having been built. VIDEO: BAE Systems rolls out 1st Hunter-class frigate program unit - Naval Today

Interesting is the mention of having 24 MK41 VLS, which, if true, is a change for the Hunters as well, these having been "advertised" as having 32. Also interesting is mention of a vertical launch silo for Sea Ceptor, which would be a pretty significant change.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Sea Ceptor would be a completely new capability for the Aussies from their initial proposal. I think that they might have gotten the RN or RCN ship capabilities mixed up in there somehow. But given the weight restriction issues maybe they same to the same conclusion that Canada did and was unable to fit in the extra VLS.
 
Last edited:

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
That article also mentions the Sea Ceptor silo. Which would be a completely new capability for the Aussies from their initial proposal. I think that they might have gotten the RN or RCN ship capabilities mixed up in there somehow.
Or the Aussies have suddenly decided to move in that direction.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
725
Points
1,060
I haven't caught anything yet, seems strange, and doesn't look like there's been any official update


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2FHunter_Class_Fact_Sheet.pdf&clen=3353118&chunk=true
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
It makes me wonder if they want to save the Mk41 VLS cells for something other than ESSM?
That's the best thing about VLS. They are so flexible.

If they have Sea Ceptor then any launcher that takes away from the VLS (the 8 missing VLS) are really only replacing launchers that would have held ESSM instead.

So basically it would be awash in self defence missile numbers. There are other possible reasons for this, including less design change from the original version. 🤔
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
That's the best thing about VLS. They are so flexible.

If they have Sea Ceptor then any launcher that takes away from the VLS (the 8 missing VLS) are really only replacing launchers that would have held ESSM instead.

So basically it would be awash in self defence missile numbers. There are other possible reasons for this, including less design change from the original version. 🤔
I am confused now. I thought Sea Ceptor went in dedicated cells amidship. If the Aussies are adding Sea Ceptor, it means the could potentially carry fewer ESSM in the Mk41 (although quadpacking only nets you one cell for every 4 ESSM missiles that you trade in, so it is an expensive trade).

BTW, are we now certain we are officially down to 24 Mk 41 in our CSC?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
I am confused now. I thought Sea Ceptor went in dedicated cells amidship. If the Aussies are adding Sea Ceptor, it means the could potentially carry fewer ESSM in the Mk41 (although quadpacking only nets you one cell for every 4 ESSM missiles that you trade in, so it is an expensive trade).

BTW, are we now certain we are officially down to 24 Mk 41 in our CSC?
On the T26 there are 24Mk 41VLS and 24 Sea Ceptor individual cells all together on the focsle.

Type-26-Foredeck.jpg


The UK will also have Sea Ceptor Launcher amidships. The image below is the best one I could find which shows all the missile locations. Whether the Sea Ceptor on the T26 is going to be a mushroom farm setup or something else I can't say.

TYpe-26-frigate-missile-silos.jpg


The CSC and Hunter programs want to replace the forward Sea Ceptor location with 8 more strike-length VLS. CSC may have walked this back to 24 VLS forward.

My inference was that if Australia removed the 8VLS from forward and went with a Sea Ceptor solution it would look like the T26 images above. Thus a one for one ESSM->Sea Ceptor. Or they could use the amidships launch location shown above as well (which appears to be the CSC solution, image below).

Canadian-Surface-Combatant-CSC-Royal-Canadian-Navy-Sea-Ceptor-1024x768.jpg
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
650
Points
1,040

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,131
Points
1,140
The Japanese ship is a beast. looks like 64 VLS in front and 16VLS? in the rear. 2 CIWS and 8 Harpoon or other ASM?

Question is the Spy7 coming in different sizes? The JS panel looks much bigger than in the CSC. (could be just the pic)
The Japanese platform concept is a much bigger ship than the CSC, the CSC seems to be a Destroyer/Frigate Hybrid - while the JSDFN is a full out Aegis Cruiser - like the Tico's.
The CIWS placement on the Japanese concept is odd though - both the fore and aft will have restricted arc that will leave dead spots - unless the rear gun has a near 320 degree arc, also very limited depression to engage surface or low flying contacts in close
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,494
Points
1,060
I believe the Japanese decided on their ship as an alternative to the AEGIS Ashore systems they were contemplating. The ships are more expensive and less effective but more politically acceptable.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
650
Points
1,040
I believe the Japanese decided on their ship as an alternative to the AEGIS Ashore systems they were contemplating. The ships are more expensive and less effective but more politically acceptable.
That ship in the pic is not the AEGIS Ashore replacement. They are building that ship. I think the they are looking at using the AEGIS Ashore system (Spy 6 not 7) in a new hull. I think the debate is do they go full multifunction DDG or a special 2 hull AEGIS system ship.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,494
Points
1,060
So the Japanese are thinking really big these days. Wow. Thanks for making that clear.

I wonder how many launch cells they will be able to put to sea when they are all finished.

Even at 24 cells and 15 ships we could launch 360 SM-3 ABMs, or SM-6 Multi-Functionals, or even 360 Tomahawks (not that that would be likely).

But it would be kind of neat to wargame 360-480 SM-6s along with the 360 CAMMs and 120 NSMs.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Question is the Spy7 coming in different sizes? The JS panel looks much bigger than in the CSC. (could be just the pic)
Yes. Its scalable which is one of the reasons CSC chose it.

The Japanese platform concept is a much bigger ship than the CSC, the CSC seems to be a Destroyer/Frigate Hybrid - while the JSDFN is a full out Aegis Cruiser - like the Tico's.
The CIWS placement on the Japanese concept is odd though - both the fore and aft will have restricted arc that will leave dead spots - unless the rear gun has a near 320 degree arc, also very limited depression to engage surface or low flying contacts in close

I wouldn't read too much into the Japanese concept art. They are still a ways away from actually deciding on a ship design, though given their previous designs something that looks like that is likely. They basically have a modified Arleigh Burke there.
 
Top