Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Long range]

If anyone is going to CANSEC I have 3 questions what type of x band radar,is the CSC getting atlas electronik sea spider and will it have ship launched torpedoes.John Fedup may yet be happy Lockheed Martin is the CSC combat system integrator and I'm 99% certain they have the license to manufacture and service the millennium ciws in the USA so you never know

 

[John Fedup]

Would absolutely make me happy to see Millenium as the CIWS choice.

 

[Calculus]

If anyone is going to CANSEC I have 3 questions what type of x band radar,is the CSC getting atlas electronik sea spider and will it have ship launched torpedoes.John Fedup may yet be happy Lockheed Martin is the CSC combat system integrator and I'm 99% certain they have the license to manufacture and service the millennium ciws in the USA so you never know

Sea Spider is pretty much confirmed: Atlas Elektronik, Magellan team to co-develop SeaSpider Anti-Torpedo Torpedo | Jane's 360

I believe L3 is responsible for the torpedo handling system, but could not find that reference anywhere.

I will be at CANSEC, and will ask those specific questions. I will also try and take pics of the model(s) on display.

 

[Calculus]

Can't sleep cause I am jet lagged, so am pondering on this.

I think it is apparent that LM/BAE submitted at least four different variants of the Type 26 for RCN to consider. This was probably to cover different options for the AAW vs GP/ASW platforms. I have seen all four of these at various times.

1) 24 VLS cells + 6 ExLS cells midship
2) 32 VLS cells + 6 ExLS cells midship
3) 24 VLS cells + 2 x SeaRAM midship
4) 24 VLS cells + 2 x Phalanx midship

There are probably others. What they were doing was probably demonstrating the flexibility and expandability of the ship.

What we will probably see is two variants, one with 24 VLS cells (GP/ASW) and one with 32 VLS cells (AAW). This because Procurement Canada will find any way to cheap out, even if it is only the cost of 8 empty cells. I don't have an issue with this, as the CSC will still be superior to the Halifax, but I think the costs savings is minuscule compared to the program cost and ultimately takes away far too much capability to be justifiable. It would be best if all the ships came equipped the same - with 32 VLS cells + whatever CIADS they decide. This would give the fleet far more flexibility.

If it was my choice, I would put 48 VLS cells + 2 Millennium guns for CIADS (just to keep John Fedup happy), eliminate the ExLS cells/SeaRAM/Phalanx and NSM canisters. The additional cost (guessing $30M per ship), though not insignificant, is minimal when considering the cost of the entire ship. 48 cells could accommodate whatever missile combination they want including putting the NSM in VLS cells instead of on deck, ESSM, SM2, CAMM (if they want), RAM (if they want). It would also be much more flexible as MK41 cells would not be limited to CAMM or RAM as the ExLS cells are. Future expandability would be putting the ExLS cells midships.

Just my two cents.

One final note, a bit off topic; why do they only get 4 RAM in an ExLS canister. The RAM missile is only 160mm in diameter and the Canister should be ~ 560 mm square, there should be room for 8 with a central exhaust port, but the brochure shows only 4. I think LM/Raytheon should sharpen their pencils.

Yup. There was at least one other: 32 VLS cells + 2 x SeaRAM

 

[Long range]

I haven't seen a single version of the type 26 UK , Australia or Canada with ship launched torpedoes it's a ASW ship so you would think it would have them ,I would like to see the CSC with milas anti submarine missile it's cannister launched the Italian ASW fremm carries 4 ,it has a range of 35 kms if I remember correctly,the top of the mission Bay is big there's still some room next to the antiship missiles

 

[Mattshel]

Hopefully they do not find a way to cheap out with only 24 VLS Cells. At a minimum the AAW Variant should have 32 and the smart choice would likely be 48, it is a massive program and an extra 100 Million for 48 Cells on all Variants should be the least of PSPC's concern.

Of note, are there any other Navies with AAW ships with less that 48 VLS Cells? I cannot seem to pinpoint any Blue Water Navies that have less than 48 Cells on their AAW Ships, I may be mistaken however. It is better to have the capability and not use it then require it and not have it, sail them with 16 empty cells, or lease missiles to put in the cells, I am sure the USN would gladly do so like the Harpoon's we currently have.

 

[Calculus]

HMCS St John's intercepts a supersonic target with ESSM (EX Formidable Shield): Canada, France achieve supersonic firsts during missile defense drill off Scotland

 

[Long range]

The De Zeven class has room for 48 cells but only has 40 installed the German saschen class has 32 the Danish Iver class has 32 but it also carries 24 essm in separate cells

 

[Mattshel]

The De Zeven class has room for 48 cells but only has 40 installed the German saschen class has 32 the Danish Iver class has 32 but it also carries 24 essm in separate cells

The Iver Class is interesting, if I am not mistaken there is also more room for Mark 41 Cells if required.

Does anyone on here have any idea of the minimum requirements when the RFP was issued? I have heard mention in the past that the requirement was a minimum of 29 Cells on the AAW variant like the previous Iroquois Class, exclude the crane and you end up with 32 Cells.

Holding out hope that the penny pinchers at PSPC don't get creative and save money in places that it should actually be invested in.

 

[Long range]

The type 26 is the best platform but I'm 100% convinced the GOC will water down the design to save money

 

[Calculus]

The type 26 is the best platform but I'm 100% convinced the GOC will water down the design to save money

Not sure why though. The PBO report section 2.7 (https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC Costing/CSC_EN.pdf) shows that the $60 Billion budget includes a full weapons loadout for each vessel, to the tune of a maximum $1.8 Billion for all 15 ships (for a 36-cell configuration).

So, unless something has changed, and there has been no indication of this, the budget allows for a full complement of missiles for each ship, up to a 36 cell configuration. There should be no financial reason each and every CSC couldn't be configured with a minimum of 32 cells.

 

[Mattshel]

Not sure why though. The PBO report section 2.7 (https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC Costing/CSC_EN.pdf) shows that the $60 Billion budget includes a full weapons loadout for each vessel, to the tune of a maximum $1.8 Billion for all 15 ships (for a 36-cell configuration).

So, unless something has changed, and there has been no indication of this, the budget allows for a full complement of missiles for each ship, up to a 36 cell configuration. There should be no financial reason each and every CSC couldn't be configured with a minimum of 32 cells.

If this is in fact the case that is a relief, especially when factoring in maintenance cycles it should allow more than enough missiles throughout the fleet.

 

[Long range]

That's 120 million per ship not enough for all 15 to have their own loadouts maybe a little over half but we will only be able to deploy 5 at a time with a small stockpile for spares, missiles are expensive in Canadian dollars essm is around 2 million and sm2 is around 4 million,32 cells , torpedoes,antiship missiles and ciad missiles probably 200 million easy per ship

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would assume Canada would still have significant stocks of SM-2 from the destroyers and ESSM from the frigates.
Not all ships will be at see at once, so a pool of missiles would seem to be very workable.

 

[ngatimozart]

I haven't seen a single version of the type 26 UK , Australia or Canada with ship launched torpedoes it's a ASW ship so you would think it would have them ,I would like to see the CSC with milas anti submarine missile it's cannister launched the Italian ASW fremm carries 4 ,it has a range of 35 kms if I remember correctly,the top of the mission Bay is big there's still some room next to the antiship missiles

I think I saw a RN illustration a whiles back that showed the ASW torpedoes being launched from within the hull through a hatch in the side. Hence them not been shown on the upper deck. ASROC or similar can be launched from the MK-41 VLS so I don't see the need for box launchers on the upper deck, especially 02 and higher decks. Extra launchers on the upper deck adds weight which increases stability problems. The RAN and RNZN ANZAC Class FFG/H are a classic example. That's why I think the ExLS VLS has been chosen because it is significantly less weighty than the Mk-41 VLS. If 32 MK-41 VLS cells are fitted then 8 can be set aside for ESSM which gives 32 ESSM and leaves 24 cells for other missiles such as SSM and SM-2/6.

Personally I think that 40 - 48 MK-41 VLS cells would be the optimal fit out for the Type 26 and its Commonwealth variants, and I believe that they have to be split fore and aft so that the ship is still capable of firing missiles if it sustains a hit to a nest of cells. However ideally the aft nest should be on the quarter deck, but with the design the flight deck extends all the way to the stern. This means that the aft cells have to be placed up high and as I said above it impacts upon stability.

 

[Long range]

I think the one thing most agree on is they would like to see more then 32 vls cells on the type 26

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Canada to buy two more AOPS

Looks like Canada will be getting more offshore patrol vessels to fill the gap. Not sure if this is the best option. Considering that most of the machinery spaces of the Type 26 are unlikely to change, I don't see why they don't bring the start of the CSC forward.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, some other work solution makes sense, e.g. Heavy icebreaker, another Berlin, or your suggestion for starting CSC sooner ( the best solution). However, the CCG does urgently need new ships so I won't loose any sleep over this. Maybe the first two DeWolf class ships can go to the CCG and the remaining ships can be up-gunned for the RCN.

 

[Mattshel]

I would assume that this means earliest likely construction on the CSC is somewhere around 2024-2025. My main worry with adding more and more AOPS is that some bureaucrat gets a great idea not even to move forward with the CSC and instead Frankenstein a De Wolfe, this is why I do not want any more armament on the De Wolfe's until a midlife refit. I would also be interested to see the mission profile of the Coast Guard versions and any changes that are required that will inflate the price. If our politicians were smart they would be paying attention to the Kiwi's and offering up a spot on the line for a De Wolfe at a decent price, from my understanding they are already looking at something similar if not the same already.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would assume that this means earliest likely construction on the CSC is somewhere around 2024-2025. My main worry with adding more and more AOPS is that some bureaucrat gets a great idea not even to move forward with the CSC and instead Frankenstein a De Wolfe, this is why I do not want any more armament on the De Wolfe's until a midlife refit. I would also be interested to see the mission profile of the Coast Guard versions and any changes that are required that will inflate the price. If our politicians were smart they would be paying attention to the Kiwi's and offering up a spot on the line for a De Wolfe at a decent price, from my understanding they are already looking at something similar if not the same already.

Well your Justin and our Jacinda have a crush on each other, so maybe Justin should make Jacinda an offer she couldn't refuse on an AOPS/V. Just saying.