Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Black Jack Shellac]

Not sure Jack. I think CAMM could very well be in the mix. I visited the MBDA booth last year at CANSEC, and they were very much pushing CAMM for the CSC CIADS requirement. This was even reported locally in Ottawa Business Journal, as well as internationally by Janes's: Sea Ceptor pitched for CSC CIADS [CANSEC18D1] | Jane's 360

Given @Systems Adict's keen observations in post 1725, I think the only logical conclusion is ExLS. Unless, as you yourself mentioned, these are something different entirely. However, given SeaRAM has disappeared, and CIADS remains a requirement for CSC, something had to replace that system. With the sudden appearance of these cells in this latest model, it is logical to assume SeaRAM has been replaced by Sea Ceptor.

Another thing to remember is Sea Ceptor has now been integrated into CMS330 as a result of the Kiwi frigate upgrades.

So I was doing some looking back at the previous information and graphics. If you look on the Canada's Home Team page at the graphic and zoom in on the space just behind the funnel between the sat domes, you can see part of the cells. Also, if you look at their video on the same page and freeze frame/zoom in at 0:15 you can see them again outlined behind the sat dome. So whatever they are, they have been in the works for a while. I suspect it has always been an option for the CIADS.

Looking at the Lockheed Martin brochure for the ExLS (my best guess as to what they are right now), there seem to be 4 options for load out (could be more, I am not a subject matter expert). The options on the brochure are NULKA quad packed, Longbow/JAGM tri-packed with an exhaust port, RAM BLK 2 quad packed with an exhaust port, or CAMM quad packed soft launch.

I doubt they would install ExLS for NULKA or JAGM, so I think it is either CAMM or RAM (or it's not ExLS and I am completely off base - wouldn't be the first time).

Calculus you may start convincing me it is CAMM, I still struggle with why they would come up with a different solution than what the RN did as you show in #1737.

Regards

 

[FOAC]

Why ExLS? Perhaps
1. it's a more compact solution that enables the satellite comms (?) antennae to be located to port and starboard
2. It's a LM product that needs a boost to generate interest and orders

 

[Calculus]

So I was doing some looking back at the previous information and graphics. If you look on the Canada's Home Team page at the graphic and zoom in on the space just behind the funnel between the sat domes, you can see part of the cells. Also, if you look at their video on the same page and freeze frame/zoom in at 0:15 you can see them again outlined behind the sat dome. So whatever they are, they have been in the works for a while. I suspect it has always been an option for the CIADS.

Looking at the Lockheed Martin brochure for the ExLS (my best guess as to what they are right now), there seem to be 4 options for load out (could be more, I am not a subject matter expert). The options on the brochure are NULKA quad packed, Longbow/JAGM tri-packed with an exhaust port, RAM BLK 2 quad packed with an exhaust port, or CAMM quad packed soft launch.

I doubt they would install ExLS for NULKA or JAGM, so I think it is either CAMM or RAM (or it's not ExLS and I am completely off base - wouldn't be the first time).

Calculus you may start convincing me it is CAMM, I still struggle with why they would come up with a different solution than what the RN did as you show in #1737.

Regards

Hi Jack, I hadn't noticed that change. Nice catch. It's pretty hard to see that on the webpage itself, so I snagged the .jpg and have attached it to this response for everyone else to examine. You will have to open the .jpg in an application that allows you to zoom, and them zoom on the starboard SAT dome to see what Jack is referring to above. I find it interesting that all the other features are clearly labelled, but the CIADS text does not point to any particular section of the ship, leaving one to wonder if this decision is still being finalized. ( Infographic source: STRONG: the Right Ship Solution for the Navy | Canada's Home Team)

Given the many many different models and renderings that are floating around it is easy to see why there is confusion about this design.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Why ExLS? Perhaps
1. it's a more compact solution that enables the satellite comms (?) antennae to be located to port and starboard
2. It's a LM product that needs a boost to generate interest and orders

I think they could have accommodated the sat domes even with he British solution. Perhaps it is to allow for future expandability? By quad packing the missiles, they make room for, maybe, 6 more cells in the future?

Another question is why did they move the sat domes from either side of the mast to above the ops bay (RN vs RCN) if space was an issue? I think it was to make the mast lower by allowing a lower positioning of the radar, but that is a pure guess. I won't guess if this helps operationally, but it sure looks better than the tall masts on the RN and RAN versions.

 

[Calculus]

Why ExLS? Perhaps
1. it's a more compact solution that enables the satellite comms (?) antennae to be located to port and starboard
2. It's a LM product that needs a boost to generate interest and orders

Both excellent reasons. I addition, I would argue flexibility, as I don't believe the "mushroom cap" cells employed by the RN allow for anything other that Sea Ceptor.

 

[spoz]

That close to those antennas, it would almost certainly have to be a cold launch system otherwise there would be issues with the efflux impinging on the domes, which would likely be a very bad thing. That limits load out options, even if the cells are versatile.

 

[swerve]

Both excellent reasons. I addition, I would argue flexibility, as I don't believe the "mushroom cap" cells employed by the RN allow for anything other that Sea Ceptor.

I think those mushroom cap cells are minimum change from the Sea Wolf launchers, fitting the same number of missiles into the same space. It looks to me as if a single CAMM canister has been slotted into each Sea Wolf cell, with the mushroom cap being a slight extension for the longer missile.

 

[Calculus]

Here's a drawing from the RCN website (Navy News | Design unveiled for the future Canadian Surface Combatants). It is a bit blurry, but shows what appears to be a CIWS (Phalanx) station on the wing beside the funnel. So, I have now seen models/drawings/renderings of this design with a) Phalanx, b) SeaRAM, and c) a VLS with an unknown missile (possibly Sea Ceptor). Colour me confused... Also, I have seen multiple different representations of the radar panels, and note that this drawing differs from the model shown in the video in post 1719, in that the smaller targeting radar is on top of the volume search radar (which we have determined is a derivative of the LM LRDR), whereas in the video at post 1719 those positions are reversed.

 

[Mattshel]

The cells to the rear of the funnel look to be larger than the ones forward of the bridge, maybe it is a perspective issue or a scale problem but each individual cell does look larger than the Mk 41 cell.

Seeing some other materials come out from Sea Air Space 2019, everything seems to be pointing to some sort of Aegis integration into the ships. I would expect far more information to come to light in the next few weeks with CANSEC on the horizon.

 

[John Fedup]

Well, no wonder junior's government walked away from their charge against Admiral Norman. As Normal had approval from Harper's cabinet to negotiate with Davie, their case was BS. It surprises why this fact didn't come out sooner despite the Liberal government's intent to hide this. just imagine had the ship conversion not gone ahead as the bureaucracy wanted (and apparently some defence people as well). The RCN would have been without an AOR until the Berlins arrive, date unknown. No wonder why Harper made an end run around these analtards.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-supply-ship-davie-harper-mackay-1.5134548

 

[Calculus]

Found this picture from DEFSEC Atlantic 2018 in Halifax last October, which also shows a "feature" aft of the funnel that appears to be some form of VLS. This one looks more built up (taller) than the one in the video at post 1719. Also not present on this model are Phalanx or SeaRAM. Of note, however, are the round canisters for the AShMs, contrasting with the square canisters in other models, and the panel within panel radar, contrasting with the separate panels for the AESA and fire control radars on the model in the video shown at post 1719.

 

[John Fedup]

After reading this summary of the government's disgusting performance concerning the Norman affair, taxpayers should be prepared for a sizeable payment to Admiral Norman. Maybe Norman would settle for the same amount as junior paid to Omar Khadr, $10 million....as long as the minister of defence, his deputy, and General Vances heads on a platter were to be included along with the dimwits in the RCMP. Better still would be an engaged electorate in October.

Kelly McParland: Mark Norman fiasco brutally lays bare Ottawa’s incompetence

 

[FOAC]

[QUOTE="Of note, however, are the round canisters for the AShMs, contrasting with the square canisters in other models, and the panel within panel radar, contrasting with the separate panels for the AESA and fire control radars on the model in the video shown at post 1719.[/QUOTE]

Square cannisters are consistent with NSM, which as they say is 'hot right now' following USN adoption. I'll wager it's adopted by RCN, RAN and RN (if the latters interim Harpoon programme goes ahead).

2 AESA panels per face presumably equates to S band volume search and X band horizon search and target illumination. (as per Hunter class and latest Japanese, Italian and other designs)

 

[Calculus]

Confirmed. Sea Ceptor (from ExLS) it is: UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success | Jane's 360

 

[J_Can]

Confirmed. Sea Ceptor (from ExLS) it is: UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success | Jane's 360

That is really interesting, does this mean that CAMM will be the primary CIWS outfit for the CSSC, 24 missiles seems kinda low imo. Seems like it would be easy to overwhelm the point defence systems with sheer volume. Perhaps the RCN will stack a few more CAMM in the Mk41 in the bow of the ship? I can not help but think that they still may place the Phalanx on the original mounting positions. Otherwise only the JSS will have them post 2020 fleet. Has anyone heard anything about SM-2 being placed on the CSSC or will the ESSM and CAMM rein supreme for the RCN going forward?

 

[Mattshel]

That is really interesting, does this mean that CAMM will be the primary CIWS outfit for the CSSC, 24 missiles seems kinda low imo. Seems like it would be easy to overwhelm the point defence systems with sheer volume. Perhaps the RCN will stack a few more CAMM in the Mk41 in the bow of the ship? I can not help but think that they still may place the Phalanx on the original mounting positions. Otherwise only the JSS will have them post 2020 fleet. Has anyone heard anything about SM-2 being placed on the CSSC or will the ESSM and CAMM rein supreme for the RCN going forward?

I am curious what this means as well, I have heard mention of SM, ESSM, SeaRAM, and now CAMM. My thought on the matter is that the CIADS solution will be 24 CAMM in the ExLS Cells, ESSM will be the Mid Range solution and some member of the SM family for the longer range requirements within the MK 41 Cells. It would be interesting to see what is planned to also be utilized in the Mk 41 with mention of Land Attack Missiles in the past.

Interesting fact to note as well is that the initial CIAD's solution (SeaRAM) only had a total of 22 Missiles vs 24 indicated on the latest model with CAMM.

 

[Mattshel]

I am curious what this means as well, I have heard mention of SM, ESSM, SeaRAM, and now CAMM. My thought on the matter is that the CIADS solution will be 24 CAMM in the ExLS Cells, ESSM will be the Mid Range solution and some member of the SM family for the longer range requirements within the MK 41 Cells. It would be interesting to see what is planned to also be utilized in the Mk 41 with mention of Land Attack Missiles in the past.

Interesting fact to note as well is that the initial CIAD's solution (SeaRAM) only had a total of 22 Missiles vs 24 indicated on the latest model with CAMM.

To add to this, SM missile may only be present on the AAW variants, with the VLS Cells taken up by Land Attack Missiles on the GP variants.

 

[FOAC]

According to the LM literature I found online ExLS is designed to accept quad packed RAM blk2 - so CIAD could yet be either CAMM or RAM

 

[ngatimozart]

One thing that I understand about ExLS is that it can just about about be placed anywhere, so it's not location specific like the MK-41.

 

[Calculus]

According to the LM literature I found online ExLS is designed to accept quad packed RAM blk2 - so CIAD could yet be either CAMM or RAM

True, but then why change the launcher from the SeaRAM version shown on earlier drawings and models to ExLS? Also, I am leaning towards CAMM because we know it has been integrated into CMS330 as part of the NZ frigate upgrade, and we know CMS330 (along with elements of the Aegis CMS common source library) is part of CSC.