Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

Ah yes the "Cure process" is what I was thinking of.  Thanks for that Chris.

Going over the Alion bid here are a few things I noted.  Points line up the attached photo.

1.  APAR radar with the addition of what looks like a fixed array volume search radar.  Based on who's in the bid group anticipate its probably the TRS-4D Fixed Panel from Hensoldt.  They are found on the F125 Baden-Württemberg-class currently.  The mast appears to be larger to accommodate this change.

2.  Replacement of the goalkeepers with Rolling Airframe Missiles.  That's going to save space for sure and probably some power.  It will increase probability of kill on a missile and increase engagement range of missile defence.  But it does reduce the ability of the ship to defend itself against surface attack from small boats.  Despite this change, lets be honest. It does lose some cool factor without the 30mm Avenger gatling guns.

3.  Speaking of surface engagement, looks like 20-25mm guns. One forward stbd and other aft port.

4.  Harpoon missiles fit in behind the forward superstructure.  They are behind a partial bulkhead to reduce radar signature and they fire over it.  Can’t see in this image so just labeled them for completeness.

5.  Platform for 20-25mm gun.  Not in the older design.  This is gun position is new to the CSC.

6.  40 cell VLS with strike length VLS integrated.  Space for another 8 pack.

7.  127mm Oto Melara  dual purpose gun.  Most likely it’s the 127/64 version.

8.  What is this thing? Assuming it’s EW of some sort.  Whether electronic support or attack I have no idea.

9.  Note, no rotating SMART-L radar.  It's been removed and replaced by the flat panel arrays in the larger mast.

This is a well thought out and proven ship.  There is isn't much new on here just a single radar modification and a few weapons swaps.  This actually might lead to a better radar signature as you no longer have a large rotating array.
Largest issue with the ship is the amount of modification that it’s going to require for the underwater warfare suite.  The DZP doesn’t appear to have a towed array of any sort that I can find a reference for.  That’s where the real engineering changes for her are going to be and most likely her weakest point in the bid.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Underway:

Looks to me that all the EW stuff is on top of the volume search radar at the top of the mast.

Difficult to tell exactly what your label 8 is. There is one main HF transmitter antenna on that sponsoon and the funny looking contraption looks to me to be a EO/IR device of some sort for volume surface surveillance. Looks a bit to me like the Thales Naval Nederland found on the German Braunschweig class corvettes.

 

[Kirkhill]

The "Radar" Mast.

Is that a variant of the Thales Integrated Mast?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html

Thales I-Mast 500 combines a I-Mast 400 (the bottom and upper part) and a APAR Radar (middle part)

In a tentative to combine its different existing products, Thales proposes its new integrated mast I-MAST 500. I-Mast 500 integrates a I-Mast 400, already installed on Dutch OPV Holland class, and an APAR Active Phased Array Radar. Thales I-Mast 500 offers all the necessary capacities needed by modern ships.

Thales presents its new integrated mast I-Mast 500 at EURONAVAL 2014
Thales I-Mast 500 combines a I-Mast 400 (the bottom and upper part) and a APAR Radar (middle part)

With the growing number of electronic systems that must be installed on ships today (Radar, communication, ISR, guidance systems, etc...) arises the problem of electronic interferences. Thales find a solution at this problem by gathering the different systems in an unique integrated mast. The two gathered main systems are the I-Mast 400 and the APAR radar.

The I-Mast 400 was already an integrated naval sensor & communications suite packed into an advanced mast structure. By resolving the electromagnetic conflicts and line-of-sight obstructions inherent in traditional topside arrangements, it provides remarkable advantages in terms of operational performance and shipbuilding risk. Being built and tested in parallel with the construction of the ship, the IM400 solution reduces risk and time for the entire ship-building program.

APAR is the world’s first naval AESA radar providing at hemispheric coverage out to 150 km. This system is capable of searching, tracking and supporting many ESSM and SM-2 engagements simultaneously, using the ICWI guidance mode. Any type of AAW engagement, including super-sonic high-divers, super-sonic sea skimmers and stealth targets is supported. APAR has proven its system performance in more than 40 live firings. APAR is already installed on Dutch De Zeven Provinciën, German F124 Sachsen and Danish Ivar Huitfeldt class frigates.

The new I-Mast 500 combines so:
- an AESA 3D search radar,
- a non-rotating IFF system,
- an Radar ESM,
- a communication system (V/UHF, AIS, Tactical Datalink, Link 16, GSM/UMTS, Iridium, SATCOM),
- an X-band Active Electronic Scanning Array

I-Mast 500 also includes a Gatekeeper optronic sensor that provides the user with a 360° panoramic view for surveillance and awareness around the ship using staring IR and colour TV cameras, thereby relieving the need to have crew on deck. Automatic tracking reduces the operator workload and can be used to integrate with other shipboard systems.

The I-Mast 500 is larger (10x10 m) than the I-Mast 400 (8x8 m) and 30 m high. I-Mast 500 is really esay to integrated to ships. It only needs 2 days of work. Only bolts are required to assemble the mast to the ship and connexions must be make only for data, power and cooling systems.

Thales presents its new integrated mast I-Mast 500 at EURONAVAL 2014
Thales SMART-L EWC radar can be linked with I-Mast 500

I-Mast 500 can be linked with a SMART-L EWC radar for ballistic missile defence. SMART-L EWC is a naval, 3-dimensional long-range air surveillance radar operating in the D-band. The system performs long-range detection of conventional air targets and medium range detection of small “stealth” type air targets such as the newest generation of missiles and supports target identification by interfacing with an IFF system.

 

[Underway]

Underway:

Looks to me that all the EW stuff is on top of the volume search radar at the top of the mast.

Difficult to tell exactly what your label 8 is. There is one main HF transmitter antenna on that sponsoon and the funny looking contraption looks to me to be a EO/IR device of some sort for volume surface surveillance. Looks a bit to me like the Thales Naval Nederland found on the German Braunschweig class corvettes.

It could be an EO/IR camera but that's a bad place for it.  Losing out on on 100 degrees of visibility.  Unless of course you have another one aft stbd. I agree most of the EW stuff is on the mast.  Both detection systems and some electronic attack.  However if that thing is a chaff/flare/laser blinder of some sort then it counts as EW.  No idea.

Edit:  might be a version of an NGDS decoy launcher.  Has a similar outline.

The "Radar" Mast.

Is that a variant of the Thales Integrated Mast?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html

I thought that originally but after perusing the Thales website the I500 doesn't have APAR currently.  It's a beefed up I400.  So I looked at the expertise of the bidders and the TRS-4D popped up.  I thought that it was only a rotating array (used on the LCS) but it appears the german frigates have a fixed panel version fitted.  Its a C-band radar (L-band NATO) which is good for volume search and just finding contacts out there.  Especially stealthed contacts.  APAR gives you the fire control solution.  Its a pretty good combo.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just re: the 127mm potential capabilities I thought the following was interesting.

In his speech yesterday on the 2017 Defense Budget, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter  mentioned a second, previously unknown program meant to keep America's technological edge on the battlefield. The program would "turn past offense into future defense," using long-range guns already fielded in large numbers to shoot down ballistic missiles capable of carrying chemical or nuclear warheads.

Carter revealed the Pentagon was experimenting with hypervelocity projectiles developed for electromagnetic railguns—currently under development—and adapting them to conventional artillery to shoot down ballistic missiles. The secretary mentioned the Army's 155-millimeter Paladin howitzers as one platform for the artillery projectile, and the Navy's 5-inch guns (or 127-mm) as the other.

....

Link for full article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19285/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-big-guns-to-shoot-down-big-missiles/

 

[Lumber]

Underway,

For the swap from goalkeeper to RAM, I don't think you're going to be sacrificing much anti surface capability if you're simultaneously adding in a  trio (or foursome) of 25mm bushmasters. They, from what I've seen and read, are far superior in anti surface than the point defence AA systems in Anti Surface mode.

For spots 3 and 5, it doesn't seem to make sense to put a 25mm on only one side. Could it be that they are just showing you that the platforms could have either of 2 options?

My bet on number 5 is a MASS launcher.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re: the lack of APAR on the Thales mast.

Did the APAR referenced in the article above never actually make it into the Thales IMM catalogue?

I understood from the 2014 article and some other commentary that the I-500  was the I-400 of the Holland OPV with an APAR added.

https://youtu.be/5YgxCTd1pyo 

The video shows some of the technical aspects of the IMM group starting at about 1:15 with the layering of sensors shown at about 1:50

Just wondering if that information has been updated since release.

 

[Stoker]

Just re: the 127mm potential capabilities I thought the following was interesting.


Link for full article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19285/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-big-guns-to-shoot-down-big-missiles/

Project HARP anyone?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It could be an EO/IR camera but that's a bad place for it.  Losing out on on 100 degrees of visibility.  Unless of course you have another one aft stbd. I agree most of the EW stuff is on the mast.  Both detection systems and some electronic attack.  However if that thing is a chaff/flare/laser blinder of some sort then it counts as EW.  No idea.

Edit:  might be a version of an NGDS decoy launcher.  Has a similar outline.

I agree it could be an NGDS launcher. Again, hard to tell from that picture. But wether a decoy launcher or an EO/IR, you'd need a second one aft and starboard for full coverage. And I think there may be one (though we do not have any aft view or all around view yet). If  you look at the after Sea-RAM, going left, there's another HF transmitter antenna, then a dome for one of the satellite systems but then, left of all that you have a little squarish structure sticking out from a position that would be on the starboard lower corner of the hangar in the corresponding spot of the second 25-30 mm bushmaster on the port side.

BTW, those two sponsoon mounted items at the front: if the second one is a decoy launcher, that and the bushmaster are in one hell of an interesting location for servicing and re-loading in action. That last one would be a bit*h, especially if someone decides its time to launch something from the VLS  ;D.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Quick question...wouldn't you want (prefer) an EO/IR ball up higher and somewhere you'd get the best coverage possible of your 360?

 

[Underway]

Underway,

For the swap from goalkeeper to RAM, I don't think you're going to be sacrificing much anti surface capability if you're simultaneously adding in a  trio (or foursome) of 25mm bushmasters. They, from what I've seen and read, are far superior in anti surface than the point defence AA systems in Anti Surface mode.

For spots 3 and 5, it doesn't seem to make sense to put a 25mm on only one side. Could it be that they are just showing you that the platforms could have either of 2 options?

My bet on number 5 is a MASS launcher.

I agree with everything you've said here Lumber.  I just like LOVE Avenger 30mm.  It's a failing.  I accept it. 

As for a 25mm only on one side, the original DZP has 20mm Oerlikon positions just below the harpoons on the boat deck on either side.  They also have 2-4x50 cal positions.  If those are still in the design (even though we can't see them in this 3D model) then that's a pretty good coverage.  If there were say only 2x50 cal positions per side and a 25mm on each side even if the 25mm didn't cover the entire arc that's still a significant upgrade from what we have now.  If the new 50 cal positions are the Remote Weapons Stations versions they keep talking about getting us then its a real increase, as gyro stabilized AP 50 cal rounds are not fun for bad guys in small boats.

Re: the lack of APAR on the Thales mast.

Did the APAR referenced in the article above never actually make it into the Thales IMM catalogue?

I understood from the 2014 article and some other commentary that the I-500  was the I-400 of the Holland OPV with an APAR added.

Doesn't look like it.  I-500 is a more powerful version of the I-400 apparently.  They are really only selling the I-400 by the looks of things.

I agree it could be an NGDS launcher. Again, hard to tell from that picture. But wether a decoy launcher or an EO/IR, you'd need a second one aft and starboard for full coverage. And I think there may be one (though we do not have any aft view or all around view yet).

Seen.  I'm glad to see I'm not the only obsessive compulsive for these 3D models.  ;D

BTW, those two sponsoon mounted items at the front: if the second one is a decoy launcher, that and the bushmaster are in one hell of an interesting location for servicing and re-loading in action. That last one would be a bit*h, especially if someone decides its time to launch something from the VLS  ;D.

I would assume there was a door along the superstructure somewhere to provide easy access to them.  Still would need a harness as there is no railing but at least you could walk out.  And yes a VLS launch while reloading would be irritating and dangerous.

Quick question...wouldn't you want (prefer) an EO/IR ball up higher and somewhere you'd get the best coverage possible of your 360?

Yes.  The SEOSS system gets mounted just forward of the SMART-S radar on the secondary mast.  This gives it about 200-230 degree arc from port to stbd.  This makes sense as usually when you want to look at someone you are sailing towards them.

The SIRIUS IR system which is used for missile detection, surveillance and kill assessment is placed on the forward part of the main mast.  It spins constantly like a radar looking for IR signatures.  It has a much better LOS than the SEOSS because of its importance in ship defence and thus its placement.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks!

 

[Underway]

So this worked for the Alion bid.  Lets compare with the Lockheed bid.

1. 5”/62 BAE main gun.  Different from the Otomarletta 127/64  by a whole two calibers.  Functionally the exact same thing with perhaps the Otomarletta having a faster muzzle velocity.

2. 24 VLS that I could count, also the same number of VLS as indicated by the Type 26 plans for the UK version not including the single CAAMS launchers.  Assuming the requirement for an AAW version is available then there should be another 8 VLS around here somewhere.  Perhaps they are added to the same spot in the AAW version.  Or perhaps they are added at area 7.  Also if I'm correct on that radar system then these are going to be SYLVER VLS as they will be holding and shooting Aster and hopefully SCALP missiles.

3. 50 cal mount by the looks of things, though it could be Big Eyes.

4. After some extensive google-fu this might be the Kronos Dual Band system from Leonardo (used to be Selex).  It operates with two panel types, with a C-band (the big square) and X-band (the little square).  Now Kronos normally work with the PAAMS system (Aster missile family). If the gloss brochure is to be believed you can do just about everything with this system including electronic attack.  I'm a bit skeptical but its ancestor is the EMPAR (on the Horizon class) and the MFRA (on the Italian FREMM) which are well regarded ships.

5. Looks like a Link 16 antenna with an ECM system on top of it.

6. Oh wow.  One of the bidders took the time to look up what a naval ensign looks like.  Who woulda thunk… /sarcasmoff

7. On previous models of the Type 26 the extra missiles would be placed here.  However there are two big Satcom domes here instead.  Also in the video they zoom in to the plans for the flex deck and I don’t see where any VLS would fit, where the old UK video it clearly shows that the VLS fit just there.

8. Flex deck.  An amazing idea that will most likely make this an extremely valuable ship in the future.

9. Not Harpoons.  Look like the Naval Strike Missile or Joint Strike Missile launchers.

10. Whats this door for?  Launching the Zodiac?  Seems a bit short for that.  Also it’s only on the port side with no matching door on the stbd. 

11. 25mm gun position.  There is an identical one on the other side of the hangar.

12. Fancy new helicopter.

13. There are two stern doors.  One most likely for launching a variable depth active sonar.  Other is for maybe a stern launch boat but it seems rather high out of the water for that.
This might be the GP variant we are looking at.  I expect there to be more missiles somewhere in the AAW variant.  The radar on the AAW variant might be more substantial as well.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

10.  UUV or USV bay?

 

[MTShaw]

The Mk. 38 Mod 3 is a 30mm gun. You can use Mk. 38s has a CIWS. However I'm wondering what is there for the bow.

 

[MTShaw]

The Type 26 is lacking in the VLS. I thought the minimum was 32 mk41 VLS. It only 24 VLS. I'm betting the lack of VLS has Britain angling to sell their Sea Ceptor is very small VLS. So they're not compliant in several ways, including the ship has never floated. 

 

[Underway]

The Mk. 38 Mod 3 is a 30mm gun. You can use Mk. 38s has a CIWS. However I'm wondering what is there for the bow.

Might be 30mm.  Or might be 25mm to match what's on the AOPS and have commonality across the fleet.  The bow has a 127mm so no worries about that end of the ship.  :nod:

The Type 26 is lacking in the VLS. I thought the minimum was 32 mk41 VLS. It only 24 VLS. I'm betting the lack of VLS has Britain angling to sell their Sea Ceptor is very small VLS. So they're not compliant in several ways, including the ship has never floated. 

Two things.  One they are compliant.  Ship that has never floated was NEVER the requirement despite what many were saying.  It was a mature design.  This allowed for all the bidders to modify their designs to meet Canadian requirements.  Otherwise we would be getting a completely unmodified F-105 or FREMM for the bid which just won't do.  There is no way that Lockheed/BAE would overlook a compliance issue as obvious as the number of VLS.

Secondly I thought the 32 VLS is a min requirement as well, but I might be wrong.  I'm beginning to wonder if the 3D model is missing stuff.  The 24 VLS might be a requirement for the GP version and the 32 for the AAW version.  There is still plenty of space to add more VLS for the AAW version forward.  That is where the CAAMS VLS are going in the UK Type 26.  The other thing is that there is perhaps a requirement for a min of 24 strike length VLS and then the remainder need to be for ship self defence.  If that's the case then you can probably put the remaining ones located in position 7 as ESSM and CAAMS single launchers can be very short in comparison.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think you may be right about the rendering not being complete or exact, Underway

For instance, the garage door on the port side of the hangar. In all other Type 26 renderings, be it the UK or the one offered to Australia, that door has one more panel  and is where the rescue boat is located. I am attaching another rendering which I took from the Lockheed Martin web site. It is not as clear, but seem to show full size door almost two decks high in that location - which would be sufficient of a Rhib.

As for the larger door at the stern, the Type 26 has two mission bays: one mid-ship in front of the hangar, which has the large doors on both side and can be used for large assault Rhibs. But there is a second one under the landing pad. That's the one accessed through the larger aft door. In the UK version, it has an extendable boom crane to lower an hoist other boasts or UUV's, or it can be accessed alongside using a ramp to load vehicles or containers, etc.
 

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

Guaranteed their bid was not compliant.

 

Really ....care to elaborate on that ? ...For what its worth i doubt there even was a bid.

Their ships cut plenty of corners with their Mil/Civ standard combinations. 

Do they now....well why dont you tell me what those corners might be instead of that tired old nebulous "commercial spec" (false)argument.
I know there are a couple of details of the Huitfeldt design which the RCN might not agree with,  BUT i am also certain that its not what YOU think it is....none of it is related to build standard or survivability.

All our ships are moving towards Lloyds Naval Standards for building/maintenance. 

Yes and all RDN ships are built/maintained to Det Norske Veritas-Germanischer Lloyds (DNV-GL) Naval standards....i fail to see the difference.

If you can find a modern ASuW missile for $2M you buy it as that's half price (in US dollars) for a Block 3 Exocet. 

Well ....we got our Harpoon block IIs for less than $2M....but granted that was 15 years ago ;D......
But Exocet and Harpoon and other western anti ship missiles are not a likely threat......their Chinese and Russian counterparts however are and those tend to be a lot cheaper , hence the low cost i quoted.

" Its a C-band radar (L-band NATO"

C-band is not Nato L but G-band.....it operates at a frequency band between X and S-band......and however good the TRS-4D may be it is NOT remotely in the same capability bracket as SMART-L when it comes to 3D volume search...old or new version. TRS-4D is a medium range (250km) multi-function radar like Thales Sea Master 400 meant for OPVs and light frigates.

 

[Underway]

Really ....care to elaborate on that ? ...For what its worth i doubt there even was a bid.

I thought I was insinuating a non-bid however...  why bid if you can't be compliant? I don't think they bid because of two issues. Firstly I don't believe the Iver Hudfield (as it currently stands) can comply to RCN damage control standards without significant modification.  That relates to build standards, damage control equipment, personnel numbers on board to do damage control etc... we do things too differently to make it work easily.  Just my opinion from observation which I realize in retrospect I presented as fact.

Secondly, when you have the DZP with almost the exact same loadout in sensors, a closer aligned DC,  added to the effort to redesign the ship, then why bother competing?  Save your money and carry on happily.

Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong again and what really happened was that after working with Irving and the Canadian procurement process once before on the AOPS the Danes decided that they wouldn't do that again to their people no matter how much money was involved.  :nod:

C-band is not Nato L but G-band.....it operates at a frequency band between X and S-band......and however good the TRS-4D may be it is NOT remotely in the same capability bracket as SMART-L when it comes to 3D volume search...old or new version. TRS-4D is a medium range (250km) multi-function radar like Thales Sea Master 400 meant for OPVs and light frigates.

I was going from the current NATO nomenclatures not the old nomenclatures and may have gotten them backwards (and looking at my link it's written right there in black and white...  :-[  so yah backwards).
Mea culpa MikeKiloPapa.

As for the SMART-L I agree it is much better for volume search.  450+nm and really good at it's job.  Agreed that the TRS-4D is a medium range radar though I disagree that it's for light frigates.  I was making a supposition on the bidder and their team.  If there is another system out there that matches to the lower half of that radar picture I'm all ears.  Maybe it is a SeaMaster 400 like you said. Which would not only be comparable to a TRS-4D but also the SMART-S in my humble opinion which is what we have on our current frigates.

However the requirement for radar for the new frigates is a Medium or Medium+ scalable radar.  So a SMART-L is well past the requirement in capability and it's definitely not scalable.  So pick a Medium+ scalable radar that it could be.