Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Apologies, I do not mean to get into a pissing match with anyone on this board, all of who are more qualified than me to comment.
Cheers
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Cheers
@Black Jack Shellac it's not aimed at you so no need to apologise. It's just a general note that's all.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I agree, AOPS is just a floating flagstaff, a make work project, classic pork barrelling. We would have been better off with an extra 1-2 heavy icebreakers added on to the one SeaSpan is supposed to build.
In a perfect world, 6-10 SSNs would be nice but let’s face it, this will never happen.
Actually the population does understand the difference but doesn’t GAS about Canada’s defence because they are to busy whining for more social handouts. Ignorance would be more forgivable.
An AIP sub utilizing Li ion batteries looks promising. The Japanese are leading in this technology and the Australian/French collaboration will likely lead to further advancements. Even so, our current government or any future Liberal government will never renew our sub fleet.
Hi Jack, I was actually at CANSEC 2018, and MBDA absolutely was pitching a combination of CAMM (Sea Ceptor), ESSM Blk2, and SM-x (see my post 1309) for CSC, so you are NOT incorrect to have assumed this.
The RCN has publicly stated that they want a vessel that can operate in a "high-intensity warfare scenario" (see Leadmark 2050), and having multiple layers of gun/missile defence would certainly be desirable to support that goal. IF this came to pass (big IF), this would see CSC with RAM (a confirmed requirement for CSC) out to 9 kms, Sea Ceptor out to 25 kms, ESSM out to to 50 kms, and SM-x for longer range intercepts. It's not quite as simple as that, or course, as the overlap between RAM and Sea Ceptor for the short range would seem to suggest that you could make do with one or the other, as long as you had ESSM. In other words, RAM+ESSM+SM-x is probably as capable as RAM+Sea Ceptor+ESSM+SM-x, which would suggest Sea Ceptor would be redundant as long as RAM and ESSM are in the mix. Nevertheless, this is a very interesting topic of discussion, in my opinion, as CSC is the only version of T26 where we don't have a confirmed fit out yet. I'm not sure why this topic is causing angst with the moderators. In any case, hopefully someone on this forum with more knowledge of the capabilities of Sea Ceptor and RAM can jump in here and enlighten us all as to why this is a good or bad idea.
Last edited:
Assuming this technology turns out to be safe, and they are able to reach the battery density shown for the 2030 version, the submerged ranges shown in the info-graphic go up by a further 66%. That's pretty phenomenal, and would easily allow for not only submerged high-speed transits but actual patrolling under the ice sheet.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If the 2030 numbers are safely obtainable then this performance is very impressive assuming it costs 1/2 to 2/3 that of a SSN. However the RCN will sadly never see this capability if we continue to elect fools like we have now.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Hard to imagine the government opting for Sea Ceptor if RAM is to be included with ESSM, as previously mentioned, it would be redundant. Until the negotiations for the T26 restart, missile guessing is kind of pointless. I sure hope this doesn’t fall of the rails and we end up with another tender.
Pretty much this (edit to add almost zero chance RCN equips any ships with both ESSM and Sea Ceptor) MBDA has been trying to make inroads in Canada for some time in an attempt challenge Raytheon for what will be at some point a large missile buy. But this is still Raytheon's to loose IMO, also remember we're talking about ESSM block II here, not the current gen. RCN appears to be fond of ESSM & Raytheon - would be surprised to see a change to MBDA.
Number of cells will be interesting, would be surprised by anything more than 32. Also seems that AShM's will continue to be canister launched.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Also, isn't Canada is still a developmental partner on ESSM block 2?
I believe you are correct. ESSM block II will also be going on the Halifax class as well:
Point Defence Missile System Upgrade - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
Not causing angst with the Moderators. If it was we'd be using the red ink and threatening to swing ban hammers. Preceptors sound asleep at the moment and we prefer to keep him that way - we, ahem, diverted his ration allowance to the Moderators beer fund again. Nope we just reminding people not to get too excitable, that's all.
Trouble is @John Fedup you have a shipload of fools and no choice. It's just the party colour that changes.
Yep and no real reason for the RCN to change horses mid stride.
Are there any firm plans for Canada to acquire RAM?
Apart from a model of the Canadian Type 26 that features it I haven't been able to find anything else about it. In fact the navy is overhauling it's 21 Phalanx CIWS to ensure those systems remain valid until at least 2037.
Hauritz, I'm stumped by that one. I was sure this had been announced somewhere (still am), but I can't find any reference to this anywhere on the web. I subscribe to several Canadian defence publications, and I think I may have read it in one of those. I will check this evening. However, all that being said, I think it is telling that all three bids included either RAM or SeaRAM in their submissions (see images below).
With regards to the CIWS overhauls (and upgrades), those are intended for the Halifax class, the last of which is expected to be still in service sometime in that 2037 timeframe. There is some chatter about some of those going to AOPS when that ship class starts going through mid-life updates, also around that timeframe, but that has not been officially confirmed, as far as I know.
Alion's bid, with SeaRAM over the hangar, and just forward of the radar superstructure.
Navantia's bid, with two RAM launchers, over the hangar and over the bridge.
Hi Mozart, I don't think anyone is suggesting we'd abandon ESSM. Just wondering if there is a capability that Sea Ceptor offers that makes it superior to both RAM and ESSM (block 2) in certain scenarios, thus making it complimentary to both those systems? Based on the significant amount of advertising and their constant presence at trade shows such as CANSEC, MBDA seems to think so. I was hoping someone on this forum with knowledge of these things would chime in, that's all.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I can’t see any capability advantage adding Sea Ceptor as the RAM and ESSM seem to cover the required ranges. Perhaps there is a cost advantage for using Sea Ceptor for targets in the 8–25 km as compared to using a ESSM? If so, is the savings sufficient to justify a third missile type?
Good question John. The way I see it there would have to be a cost or capability advantage, but I don't have any insight into either. Perhaps one of the New Zealand gang could chime in as they chose Sea Ceptor over ESSM, for presumably very good reasons.
Interesting development on the legal challenge: Federal government wants OK to award Canadian Surface Combatant contract
This would seem to suggest that the Government is pretty certain Alion has no case, but don't want to wait 90 days for the ruling. They may also be preparing to play the NSE (National Security Exception) card, which, in this case, would seem to be justified: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/3/105
This would seem to suggest that the Government is pretty certain Alion has no case, but don't want to wait 90 days for the ruling. They may also be preparing to play the NSE (National Security Exception) card, which, in this case, would seem to be justified: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/3/105
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, I saw that. Clearly waiting 90 days for a decision isn’t reasonable. There have been enough delays already. Invoking the NSE card is hopefully not needed but if that’s what needed to get rolling...I’m on-board.