Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Redlands18]

Depends upon how the Canadian govt does their sums. Some govts will cite a sail-away cost whilst others include the sail-away cost plus spares, training, manuals, weapons, infrastructure etc. Some include the WOLC (Whole Of Life Costs) which covers everything. Now when you look at the the sail-away cost plus spares, training, manuals, weapons, infrastructure etc., all govts are different in how they do their sums for this. For example the NZ Govt doesn't include weapons in their capability acquisitions, because in their infinite wisdom many moons back it was decided that weapons will come out of operation expenditure (OPEX) not capital expenditure (CAPEX). Probably a Treasury methodology for being stingy and avoiding paying for advanced (hence expensive) weaponry.

Therefore to get an idea of how the announced costs are structured, would be to ask the DND or the DEFMIN, or see if a breakdown of the project budget is published. Maybe such material could be acquired under the Canadian equivalent of a Freedom Of Information Request.

The Australian Government uses the WOLC method and we get people in the General Public complaining about paying $250m per F-35 or $4b per Sub, or $3b per Frigate what they aren’t told is the purchase cost is only roughly about 1/3 of the overall cost,
Governments need to do a better job of explaining costs to the general Public.

 

[Calculus]

Long range UUV (2000 km range): Canada’s Cellula to proceed with development of long range UUV

More on this: Sonardyne to supply navigation instruments for Canada’s Solus-LR UUV

 

[Mattshel]

Does anyone think there is any potential of the CSC being armed with land attack Cruise Missiles? The PBO mentioned the Tomahawk as a comparison number when calculating missile costs and such but I have also heard mention that the navy would really like the capability after being impressed with the comparatively limited land attack capabilities that the Block 2 Harpoon possesses.

 

[Long range]

I have no idea but there is a antiship version of the tomahawk in the works ,there is also lrasm and lrasm er which is a dedicated long-range antiship missile that can hit land targets

 

[Calculus]

Does anyone think there is any potential of the CSC being armed with land attack Cruise Missiles? The PBO mentioned the Tomahawk as a comparison number when calculating missile costs and such but I have also heard mention that the navy would really like the capability after being impressed with the comparatively limited land attack capabilities that the Block 2 Harpoon possesses.

The RCN is on record with wanting a land attack capability beyond what Harpoon offers, both in Leadmark 2050 and in the PBO report. If you look at the LM document at the link below, on page 7 (Systems and Subsystems Scope), it indicates a Land Attack capability. Whether it is Tomahawk or not is unknown, though Tomahawk was specifically mentioned in the PBO report, so I think this would be a logical assumption.

https://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/itb/Lockheed Martin Canada Update - Eng - WIF 2019.pdf

Note this link also indicates a CIADS, short range SAM, and long range SAM. Also indicates a torpedo launcher. This is the first bit of information I have found that shows all the capabilities of the CSC. Looks quite impressive.

 

[Mattshel]

The RCN is on record with wanting a land attack capability beyond what Harpoon offers, both in Leadmark 2050 and in the PBO report. If you look at the LM document at the link below, on page 7 (Systems and Subsystems Scope), it indicates a Land Attack capability. Wether it is Tomahawk or not is unknown, though Tomahawk was specifically mentioned in the PBO report, so I think this would be a logical assumption.

https://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/itb/Lockheed Martin Canada Update - Eng - WIF 2019.pdf

Note this link also indicates a CIADS, short range SAM, and long range SAM. Also indicates a torpedo launcher. This is the first bit of information I have found that shows all the capabilities of the CSC. Looks quite impressive.

Just looking at it and it’s another different model/interpretation... From the looks of that model it looks like there are only 24 x Mk 41 Cells fore, along with CAMM Cells fore and amidships, along with Phalanx back amidships. All these models are confusing the heck out of me.

Any idea when the actual configuration is supposed to be set in stone and shown to the public?

 

[Calculus]

Just looking at it and it’s another different model/interpretation... From the looks of that model it looks like there are only 24 x Mk 41 Cells fore, along with CAMM Cells fore and amidships, along with Phalanx back amidships. All these models are confusing the heck out of me.

Any idea when the actual configuration is supposed to be set in stone and shown to the public?

I don't think you can come to any conclusions based on the renderings shown in that presentation. They all seem different. The positioning of the radar panels is different, and the one on the last page shows Phalanx, whereas the drawing on page 7 appears to show SeaRAM.

I'm hoping next week at CANSEC we'll know the final configuration, but not holding my breath. However, the infographic on page 7 of the link in post 1825 does indicate a pretty extensive set of capabilities, and that is good to see. The anti-air warfare (CIADS, short-range, and long-range SAMs) and underwater warfare suites look to be exceptionally comprehensive. So, really, the two outstanding questions are the number of Mk 41 VLS cells and if there will be a missile-based or gun-based CIADS. I'm still hopeful that 32 is the minimum Mk 41 cells, and given the two other bidders (Alion and Navantia) bid ships with 40 (Alion) and 48 (Navantia), I think that for the AAW variants at least we will see a minimum of 32.

Another thing I found quite interesting in the presentation is found on page 3, where there is an entry that seems to indicate there could be 10 AOPVs (AOPS) built. We know of 8, so who would be getting the other 2? And when? Given the CSC is due to start construction in 2023, it really does not seem likely that 10 AOPS could be built without slipping the construction start date for CSC another 12-18 months.

 

[Mattshel]

I don't think you can come to any conclusions based on the renderings shown in that presentation. They all seem different. The positioning of the radar panels is different, and the one on the last page shows Phalanx, whereas the drawing on page 7 appears to show SeaRAM.

I'm hoping next week at CANSEC we'll know the final configuration, but not holding my breath. However, the infographic on page 7 of the link in post 1825 does indicate a pretty extensive set of capabilities, and that is good to see. The anti-air warfare (CIADS, short-range, and long-range SAMs) and underwater warfare suites look to be exceptionally comprehensive. So, really, the two outstanding questions are the number of Mk 41 VLS cells and if there will be a missile-based or gun-based CIADS.

Another thing I found quite interesting in the presentation is found on page 3, where there is an entry that seems to indicate there could be 10 AOPVs (AOPS) built. We know of 8, so who would be getting the other 2. And when? Given the CSC is due to start construction in 2023, it really does not seem likely that 10 AOPS could be built without slipping the construction start date for CSC another 12-18 months.

I am with you on that, I started zooming in on each rendering shown and they were almost all different.

It seems based on that presentation that there will be a distinct Naval Fire Missile in addition to the Surface to Surface Missile though so that is great news. I am not the best with acronyms but any clue what AAW FCL and ASuW FCL stand for?

 

[Calculus]

I am with you on that, I started zooming in on each rendering shown and they were almost all different.

It seems based on that presentation that there will be a distinct Naval Fire Missile in addition to the Surface to Surface Missile though so that is great news. I am not the best with acronyms but any clue what AAW FCL and ASuW FCL stand for?

I believe, based on context, that it is "fire control loop". It relates to the various sensors, communications systems, computer systems, and processes required to detect a target, launch and control a missile, guide the missile, and intercept the target. It is the loop between the ship and the missile, in other words.

 

[Mattshel]

I for one want more information on the radar on the CSC, looks to be a dual band setup but I am more interested in the size of the radars and their power in relation to SPY-1, seeing as how Lockheed is proposing the same radar for SPY-1 retrofit on the DDG-51 one would think it is a serious upgrade over SPY-1.

 

[Calculus]

I for one want more information on the radar on the CSC, looks to be a dual band setup but I am more interested in the size of the radars and their power in relation to SPY-1, seeing as how Lockheed is proposing the same radar for SPY-1 retrofit on the DDG-51 one would think it is a serious upgrade over SPY-1.

This may be relevant: Lockheed Martin and Indra Demonstrate Next Generation Radar for Spanish Navy

 

[Calculus]

You Canucks are presuming that because ExLS is acquired that Sea Ceptor is being acquired. Do you have anything to support your argument for that proposition? "ExLS was designed to rapidly integrate qualified missiles or weapons developed and certified in an All Up Round (AUR) configuration, such as Nulka, RAM Block 2, Sea Ceptor Common Anti Air Modular Missile (CAMM), Longbow and Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM)." - Source: HOST EXTENSIBLE LAUNCHING SYSTEM Product Card

UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success | Jane's 360

From the full article, from behind the paywall: "With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, Jane's understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system."

 

[Mattshel]

It would be real nice if at CANSEC they release a more definitive timeline on the milestones for the CSC project, specifically when the systems and such to be used on the ships will be released, along with any further information on if there will be a distinct AAW variant.

News as well regarding CANSEC, it appears that they have been given approval to have a CH-148 present at the show.

 

[ngatimozart]

UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success | Jane's 360

From the full article, from behind the paywall: "With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, Jane's understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system."

Ok. Another user from FEYES. The Canadian Army should look at Land Ceptor for its SAM AD missile.

 

[StingrayOZ]

UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success | Jane's 360

From the full article, from behind the paywall: "With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, Jane's understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system."

Ok, surprising considering Canada is an ESSM consortium member, not just a ESSM buyer. Spain is also going camm with the F-110.

I guess Canada is going to spend up big replacing ESSM stocks with CAMM stocks..

 

[Mattshel]

Ok, surprising considering Canada is an ESSM consortium member, not just a ESSM buyer. Spain is also going camm with the F-110.

I guess Canada is going to spend up big replacing ESSM stocks with CAMM stocks..

My understanding of the matter is that CAMM will fulfil the CIADS requirement, replacing SeaRAM which had previously been shown. There is still a requirement on top of CIADS for a Short Range Missile System (ESSM) and a Long Range System (SM-?)

 

[John Fedup]

I would think an AAW variant of the CSC is a given. Hopefully CANSEC will address many of the questions raised on this thread.

Ok, surprising considering Canada is an ESSM consortium member, not just a ESSM buyer. Spain is also going camm with the F-110.

I guess Canada is going to spend up big replacing ESSM stocks with CAMM stocks..

Canada also put money into the Thales APAR which was never really in the running. Still, it is doubtful Canada would replace ESSM with CAMM due to inventory considerations.

 

[Calculus]

Still, it is doubtful Canada would replace ESSM with CAMM due to inventory considerations.

The infographic attached, taken from the presentation I linked in post 1825, shows the capabilities of CSC. The Anti-Air Warfare box highlights the various components of the AAW capability. So, CAMM is not replacing ESSM. It's just the third part of the defensive layer, which comprises a LR SAM (SM-x), a SR SAM (ESSM blk 2), and CIADS (CAMM).

It's interesting how this design evolved away from RAM to CAMM. However, given what I have said previously in this thread about the marketing of this missile in Canada, and the fact that MBDA specifically did so as part of a layered defence that included ESSM and SM-x, I can't say I am surprised.

Sea Ceptor pitched for CSC CIADS [CANSEC18D1] | Jane's 360

 

[Calculus]

Ok, surprising considering Canada is an ESSM consortium member, not just a ESSM buyer. Spain is also going camm with the F-110.

I guess Canada is going to spend up big replacing ESSM stocks with CAMM stocks..

Nope. Not replace. ESSM (block 2, in fact) is the next layer of defense after CAMM (which will fill the CIADS role). Canada contributed $200 Million towards the development of ESSM Block 2, and the previous Conservative government approved another $600 million (sole source) to purchase those missiles.

 

[wowu5]

I am a bit doubtful if the supposed difference of a AAW/GP variant still exist for the CSC, seeing how LM (as well as other contestants) only pitched for a single model of the canadized Type 26 in the entire duration of the selection campaign (at least that's what the public was shown). I don't see how they could have made a major variation to the now seemingly finalized design of the CSC/Type 26 to the extent that it would create two structurally different ships class. Even if the RCN still intends to keep the distinction between air defence and general purpose frigate I believe that it would merely be a difference on the designated mission loadout of interchangeable equipment and munitions, such as long range SAMs, towed sonar and etc.