Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Black Jack Shellac said:
After much consideration, and much googling, I think it is SPY-6. He states "...that's why we fit the solid state spy aegis fire control radar...". To me, he does not say LM radar. And the only solid state spy radar that can be controlled by Aegis, is SPY-6 (that I can find), which is Raytheon's ADMR, likely the EASR radar.

So I think you are correct Calculus, SPY-6 EASR.
Click to expand...
I think so too, but could also be one of the SPY1 variants (D or F). Also confusing are the words "fire control radar", as the SPY radars appear to be volume search, not fire control. The Aegis installations I have seen (including the Hobarts) have separate fire control radars ("illuminators"), those being the SPG-62, which are dish radars in the X-band. SAAB Ceros 200 performs this function on the Halifax class.

EASR is related to SPY6 (uses the same radar modules) but different in that it seems to be designed for either a single rotating or a 3-sided installation, whereas CSC appears to have a 4-face radar. The FFG(X) designs have EASR, and are 3-sided, so I would lean more towards SPY than EASR at this point, assuming the CSC rendering is correct.

EASR: Raytheon: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar

SPY-6: Raytheon: AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)

LM FFG(X) Design with EASR: SNA 2018: Lockheed Martin Unveils its FFG(X) Frigate Design

Bath Iron Works FFG(X) Design (Navantia F100) with EASR: Navantia Selected for the Conceptual Phase of the US Navy FFG(X) Frigate Program
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Assuming the rendering is correct, yep, that’s key. If we see a future 3 sided setup then EASR seems to be the radar of choice. As previously mentioned, now that the contract has been signed, kit details should become known soon. If the government and RCN see CEC and BMD as desired then perhaps some kind of Aegis/LM330 integration could be developed as LM is the developer for both together with SPY whatever. Increased risk and cost for sure though.
 
L

Long range

Member
Cms 330 is most likely a Canadianized version of combatss-21 which is on the Lockheed LCS and is going on the USN new frigates it's a aegis derivative system.LM has said CMS 330 will be enhanced for the CSC to better leverage new capabilities
 
4

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Calculus said:
According to this CMS330 is a growth version of the CMS developed for the Halifax class: Combat Management System · Lockheed Martin
Click to expand...
The CMS330 is also being fitted to both NZ ANZAC frigates during their mid-life upgrade in Canada.

Could have implications further down the track, if NZ does replace the ANZACs with T26s? Of the three combat management systems fitted to T26, NZ will have had extensive experience with an earlier version of the Canadian one.

That is a long way in the future as the ANZACs scheduled to serve until around 2030, meaning a replacement might not get chosen until after 2025. We have elections scheduled in 2020, 2023 and 2026, and its conceivable that no decision will be made until after the latter of those three. While speculating on the choice of new frigate is entertaining, not even the RNZN has any idea how it will pan out.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The good news for NZ is there will be (hopefully) three production versions of the T26 in the water to look at prior to making a decision. The USN frigate should also be in the water as well, not a bad position to be in, to approach 4 nations with hot production lines that would welcome another 3-4 orders.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
The good news for NZ is there will be (hopefully) three production versions of the T26 in the water to look at prior to making a decision. The USN frigate should also be in the water as well, not a bad position to be in, to approach 4 nations with hot production lines that would welcome another 3-4 orders.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps not. Were they to be made in Australia they'd need to be shoe horned into a continuous program without derailing it or delaying ships to the RAN. Doing so would surely require increasing the drumbeat and that would require more skilled workers and more build facilities. Once done, the shipyard is then faced with excess staffing and we all know where that ends up.

OTOH if they were genuinely capable of producing ships for other customers alongside those for the RAN, AND could maintain an order book for a second line long term rather than in bursts separated by valleys of death.....

Not likely. Let's get our own house in order first.

oldsig
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
If NZ did want an order, I wonder if the Henderson yard in WA could accommodate? It probably has more flexibility and ability to adjust its workload. Some of the trickier blocks could still come from Osborne. Some specialist fitout could still be done at Osborne. I would imagine the Brits would have loads of spare capacity and be the most likely target for a NZ build.

I think its far more likely that NZ might be more interested in the Type 31 or simular anyway. There would be less pressure in keeping lock step with the high end frigates.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
If NZ did want an order, I wonder if the Henderson yard in WA could accommodate? It probably has more flexibility and ability to adjust its workload. Some of the trickier blocks could still come from Osborne. Some specialist fitout could still be done at Osborne. I would imagine the Brits would have loads of spare capacity and be the most likely target for a NZ build.

I think its far more likely that NZ might be more interested in the Type 31 or simular anyway. There would be less pressure in keeping lock step with the high end frigates.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what happens when NZ finally get around to looking for a replacement for their frigates. Would Australia, Canada and Britain all be offering their own variants of the Type 26 in a three way competition or does BAE retain the sole rights to onsell the Type 26?

I know that in Australia's case both Italy and France offered their own versions of the FREMM as a replacement for the Anzacs.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wasn't the idea for Australia to develop sovereign capability? I would imagine future Australia ships will be based off an evolved Type 26 design. Australian requirements are likely to make it evolve away from the others.

All three ships will be quite different.
  • Australia is very high end, at least 32 strike-length, Aegis and 9lv, massive ceafar2 radar, plus anything good from the UK (acoustics etc), euro torpedo. The radar and combat system are likely to be placed on the DDG mid life. So its really more like a destroyer in capability, I think it will be a bit of a toss up which is the more capable ship when the first hunter is in service. With CEC they could almost fill in the cruiser roll, but aren't as heavily armed. Could lead an AEGIS task group. Likely to be armed with US weapons, ESSM, SM-6, latest SM-2. First steel to be cut in 2020.
  • UK has paired them back a fair way, they have the type 45 to lead, they needed to cut costs, 24 strike, CAMM, UK weapons and combat system. Space to grow, but more euro than the Australian ship. First steel cut in 2017.
  • Canada is still in its formative stages, probably somewhere in-between the UK and AU versions but with its own combat system, US weapons etc. First steel to be cut in early 2020's (21-22?).
I imagine that good ideas will propagate across all three designs. There will be lots of bench-marking between them I think. If NZ was to choose the type 26, I imagine they would get whomever had the closes systems fit out to what they wanted. While it seems far fetched, operating costs for the Type 26 I imagine would be less than an Anzac frigate. Technically Au and Canada are making them continuously so I don't think anyone would loose a huge amount of sleep over some other BAE division building them. It would be more important the design won, rather than any build location. The difference between the ships is more down to electronics. I imagine NZ might find it politically easier to ink a deal with anyone but Australia.

Regarding the combat system, at least in consoles

CMS330 console

Late model AEGIS (trainer)

9lv (circa 2011). But I believe they are still based around a main 30" LCD.

Not that the console look is that important. There are some users here that would have pretty extensive knowledge of all three. Would love to see their insight.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
It will be interesting to see what happens when NZ finally get around to looking for a replacement for their frigates. Would Australia, Canada and Britain all be offering their own variants of the Type 26 in a three way competition or does BAE retain the sole rights to onsell the Type 26?

I know that in Australia's case both Italy and France offered their own versions of the FREMM as a replacement for the Anzacs.
Click to expand...
Osborne has been “sold” to BAE for the duration of the Hunter build so I imagine they can do whatever they like up to the completion of the 9th Hunter. Ownership of the yard is then returned to the Commonwealth or it could be extended if required
I have no doubt that the efficiency of the yard will improve to a point where they can fit any proposed T26 external sale within the drumbeat demanded by the RAN. Say they get construction efficiencies down by nearly 50% as was reported for the last DDG the subsequent gaps would provide slots for a third party build or there would be time to start a third party build on completion in 2033 (remembering it could start well before the last Hunter leaves the yard)
As long as any extra units are far enough through the construction system as to allow the start of the follow on DDGs I don’t see a problem.
 
4

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
ASSAIL said:
Osborne has been “sold” to BAE for the duration of the Hunter build so I imagine they can do whatever they like up to the completion of the 9th Hunter. Ownership of the yard is then returned to the Commonwealth or it could be extended if required
I have no doubt that the efficiency of the yard will improve to a point where they can fit any proposed T26 external sale within the drumbeat demanded by the RAN. Say they get construction efficiencies down by nearly 50% as was reported for the last DDG the subsequent gaps would provide slots for a third party build or there would be time to start a third party build on completion in 2033 (remembering it could start well before the last Hunter leaves the yard)
As long as any extra units are far enough through the construction system as to allow the start of the follow on DDGs I don’t see a problem.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I suspect there is greater chance that NZ will delay placing an order until the programme has been wound down than placing an order before Australia (or anyone else) is in a position to build additional vessels.

There is also a high probability that NZ will opt for something cheaper and less capable. Although having three allied navies operating the same platform would be a very attractive feature. One intriguing possibility is that the Navy/Government has to decide between replacing the two ANZACs with two higher-end frigates (e.g. T26), or getting 3 (or, God forbid, 4) of a lower-end design? You could make a reasonable case for either option, depending on how you see Pacific geopolitics working out.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
40 deg south said:
Sadly, I suspect there is greater chance that NZ will delay placing an order until the programme has been wound down than placing an order before Australia (or anyone else) is in a position to build additional vessels.

There is also a high probability that NZ will opt for something cheaper and less capable. Although having three allied navies operating the same platform would be a very attractive feature. One intriguing possibility is that the Navy/Government has to decide between replacing the two ANZACs with two higher-end frigates (e.g. T26), or getting 3 (or, God forbid, 4) of a lower-end design? You could make a reasonable case for either option, depending on how you see Pacific geopolitics working out.
Click to expand...
NZ will probably look for cheaper designs ... but by the mid-thirties Australia, Canada and perhaps Britain will have very mature production lines and could be in a position to offer NZ ships at a very competitive price. NZ could cut the price even more by reducing the number of VLS launchers and opting for a simpler combat system.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Black Jack Shellac said:
The latest on Admiral Norman's trial.

So it appears that the PMO is interfering in judicial matters with Norman's and SNC Lavalin's trials. All against the law in Canada. Ethics commissioner now investigating the PM again. I don't see how the PM can survive this. Right now his best course of action would be to fall on his sword to save the Liberal party.
Click to expand...
LOL, look at their tradition of previous leaders, for instance Chrétien. I thought I posted something on Vance being replaced, junior will blame him for the Norman mess. The SNC/Lavin mess is something else again and the Chinese must now laugh at junior’s pronouncements about Canada being a nation of rules and laws....ya right, as long they don’t apply to Liberal donors. Seriously though, a few social benefits and several shovel fulls of multicultural BS will pacify our brain dead electorate.
 
Black Jack Shellac

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
Calculus said:
I think so too, but could also be one of the SPY1 variants (D or F).
Click to expand...
I don't think SPY-1 of any sort is solid state. I think they all use Cross Field Amplifiers which are tube based. So if it is SPY radar, I think is has to be some sort of SPY-6. Again, just guessing from what was said. Nobody will know for sure until they release the specs.

I stand corrected. There is a solid state upgrade for the SPY-1 radar LM advocates upgrade to SPY-1 radar
 
Last edited:
L

Long range

Member
I just got a new phone and I am currently baffled on how to put any links on here but if you google spy 1 solid state radar u will come across a article where LM has proposed upgrading the flight 2 Burke's to a solid state spy 1 radar
 
M

Mattshel

Member
First time posting on here, in watching and listening to Lockheed Martin's comments on the Canadian Surface Combatant I noted a few things. The radar that they are proposing is a scaled down version of their Long Range Discrimination Radar, it is built much the same way as the SPY-6 with scalability both up and downwards depending on the needs of the user, the gentleman from Lockheed in the video attached (14:25 Onwards) mentions this specifically as well as their Aegis ashore radar in Japan which would likely be closer in size to the version fitted to the CSC. In some other comments by Lockheed reps, there have been specific mentions of Aegis when mentioning the CSC so I would assume they are planning on the CMS 330 with some level of Aegis integration, or maybe a CMS 330 interface for the Aegis Platform much like the Hunter Class. Since we are still in the very early stages I wouldn't be placing bets on specific kit but there are some weapons systems that would be a lock in the timeframe that the first CSC's are delivered (Lockheed LRASM, BAE MK 45).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top