Title is now Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems. That covers everything from oars, paddles through to nuclear power plants, but excludes flux capacitors and the like.Hi JohnFedup. OPSSG & ngatimozart have already put the thread on the Navy & Maritime forum as Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines as that was what all the fuss was all about. If you want, you could ask them to change the thread to just Naval Propulsion Systems. It would not matter to me. Cheers!
Thanks again ngatimozart! Flux capacitors will be next I guess! Ha!
We use them here for only the most important of capabilities - keeping the beer cold.
Excellent use! Maybe mix them in with a few "Dylithium Crystals" (hope that's the correct spelling-if not, who cares!)
Dilithium crystals are used for other purposes that are OPSEC.
What I can say is that this matches what I have found, and is publically available.
CEC Cooperative Engagement Capability. This link describes it.
The full contract for the construction of two Joint Support Ships has now been signed for $2.4 billion with ships delivered in 2023 and 2025. COVID-19 does not appear to be constraining military spending yet as the overall budget for the JSS has now been revised up to $4.1 billion from the $3.4 billion originally budgeted by the previous Conservative government. This is apparently in line with what the Parliamentary Budget Office predicted 7 years ago so at least things haven't ballooned further in the interim.
The propellant for Mk 45 is contained in a brass cartridge case which is mated with the shell in the ring during the loading process; it is what is known as "semi fixed" ammunition. Bagged propellant hasn't been used in guns as small as 5 inch for a very long time. If you have a look at the photo on the BAE website about the gun here Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System you will see ejected cartridge cases lying on the deck.
Exactly spoz. The spent and ejected brass cartridges are also quite obvious in this video:
And some video showing progress on the first ship:
It seems that costs have come down to reality as the PBO has predicted. Looks like almost double the costs per JSS. IMO however, the RCN still needs a third JSS to compensate for long term maintenance and refits, which will bring costs up to over $6B CAD in 2020 prices for all 3. A 2% increase in defence spending by the end of this year may still be in the cards, although I suspect not the way the government expected because of COVID-19. Defence spending will increase slightly for 2021 but it is expected to fall by 2022.
SPOZ IS ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY RECENTLY RETIRED. HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE INSULTED BY A CONDESCENDING POSTER. 1 WARNING POINT FOR 1 MONTH FOR DISRESPECTING SPOZ'S OBVIOUS EXPERTISE.You may be right spoz, but I think the main reasons for choosing the MK45 was it's longer effective range for Naval Gunfire Support, a practice the RCN used to do during the cold war days, and also to be able to convert to "Smart munitions" where needed. Anyway you look at it, it is what it is, and for better or worse, we will have to live with the choices we have made. Cheers!
Sorry about that ngatimozat. I in no way intended to be condescending to anyone. My response was really meant to respond to "spotz's" comment WRT 62 calibre vs the 45 calibre of the Mk 4 Mod 5. That's it. My comments were not meant to attack "spotz's" credibility, but to point out that Canada has to live by it's choices for a main gun. No insults to spotz's naval expertise intended. I sincerely apologize to spotz and hope he will see this for what it was intended to be. Cheers!
Great summary. Here are some of the things I've noticed regarding the CSC based on your points:
www.thedrive.com
www.telephonics.com
www.telephonics.com
www.reuters.com
www.mbda-systems.com
Hi Alberto. Interesting take on the CSC fits. The Japanese SPY 7(V) 1 Aegis ashore issue is definitely a troubling one for the CSC and Spanish Frigates and may come back to haunt us in the future with SM-3. Most of the issues in Japan appear to be easily fixed though, however the radiation issue with their citizens might be a hard sell. But if LM can de-risk the naval radar (and perhaps have others come on board i.e. USN) it may not be that much of an issue down the road. Yes, the X Band Illuminator from MDA is a well kept secret however I never thought about MDA collaborating with another company such as Thales with their Sea Fire system perhaps. That would also be a good fit for the CSC. Don't know if the CSC will get the MT 30 or MT 40 gas turbines. One of them of course. Would an MT 40 turbine fit though? Yes the 8 x missile launchers on the top of the Mission Bay do look strangely like NSMs. Sea-Ceptors seem to be the case however my biggest question is will there be either CIWS Blk 1B or RAM/Sea RAM fitted? Later pictures of the CSC, show nothing (Port/St'bd-Midships) as there was before. Just big empty spaces. Only time will tell. Cheers!Great summary. Here are some of the things I've noticed regarding the CSC based on your points:
- Volume Search Radar: SPY-7 (V1), S-band (supplied by LM)
It looks like Japan's LRDR/SPY-7 based Aegis Ashore project has been placed on indefinite hold. The main issue seems to be SM-3 booster rockets falling on populated areas and improper placement of one of the Aegis Ashore sites although there are concerns about radiation output from the LRDR. Hopefully radiation is less of a concern for the smaller SPY-7 arrays in the CSC. Japan's Aegis Ashore coming online in 2023 would have helped de-risk the SPY-7 for later users so if it's on hold for a long-time or ultimately cancelled that likely means more development time and cost will have to be borne by Canada and Spain.Japan Halts Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Plans Indefinitely Amid Public Opposition
Technical issues and concerns about cost, coupled with public outcries and embarrassing blunders have hampered the project.
- Illuminator: Unknown. (Supplied by MDA. Not known if this is a bespoke or existing design.)
Telephonics delivers the first AN/APS-508 Multi-Mode Radar to MDA for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s long-range Maritime Patrol Aircraft - Telephonics (en-US)
Telephonics Corporation is recognized globally for advanced surveillance, communications, analysis and integration solutions.Telephonics | APS-143G & AN/APS-508 ISR Radar
Telephonics’ APS-143G and AN/APS-508 multi-mission radar combines high-performance maritime, littoral and land ISR capabilities.In order to provide the radar for the CP-140M Aurora modernization, MDA partnered with Telephonics to customize/enhance the APS-143 to Canadian requirements resulting in the APS-508. Since MDA hasn't previously directly developed naval radars themselves it seems likely that a similar process will take place for the CSC where they'll partner with and customize an existing X-band radar. No solid idea who that will be though. Thales (who have the X-band APAR Blk2 and NS50) and Leonardo (who have the X-band StarFire) both have existing partnerships with MDA and were considering buying MDA when it was up for sale last year but that could be circumstantial.Leonardo, Thales consider joint bid for Maxar's MDA space division - Leonardo CEO
Italian aerospace and defense firm Leonardo SpA <LDOF.MI> and France's Thales SA <TCFP.PA> are considering the joint acquisition of a space business from U.S. firm Maxar Technologies Inc <MAXR.N>, Leonardo's CEO said on Tuesday.
- 32 x Mk41 strike-length VLS (ESSM, SM-x)
Has it been confirmed that all 32 Mk41 cells are strike length? Hopefully this isn't too naive a question, but does anyone know what the average deck height of a warship is? I haven't found a good reference, but I'm presuming 10-11 ft. The mushroom caps for the Sea Ceptor launchers stick up above the deck of the Type 26 and the Sea Ceptor is 10.5 ft tall so the existing system seems to only be 1 deck high. Strike length Mk41 are 25 ft high, Tactical length are 22 ft high, and Self-Defense are 17 ft high. With the efficiency of ESSM quad-packing and with seemingly no Phalanx and only 24 x Sea Ceptor it seems reasonable the CSC would always want to carry some ESSM for local area defence so that Sea Ceptor can be reserved for close-in use. So if the CSC always carries 32 x ESSM, using a Tactical or Self-Defense Mk41 for the forward 8-cell launcher saves 1 deck of space underneath. It'll probably also lead to more efficient compartment layout on that lower deck since you no longer have to work around that awkward T-shaped Mk41 layout.SEA CEPTOR | FORCE PROTECTION, Maritime Superiority | MBDA
Sea Ceptor is the next-generation, ship-based, all-weather, air defence weapon system.
On the other hand, are those CSC pictures on the project website new or old? If I remember correctly, older pictures of the CSC showed only 24 x Mk41 VLS and no ESM/EW bulbs on the side of the superstructure. The recent trade show models showed 32 x Mk41 VLS and the ESM/EW bulbs. These CSC project page pictures show 24 x Mk41 VLS and the ESM/EW bulbs. Do these pictures represent an old transitional configuration or has the number of Mk41 VLS dropped to 24 which really seems insufficient in the AAW role compared to other AAW frigates/destroyers?Canadian Surface Combatant
Canada’s new fleet of surface combatants includes Lockheed Martin Canada’s internationally renowned and Canadian-developed combat management system, CMS 330.www.lockheedmartin.com
- Secondary guns: 2 x 30mm DSM 30 (Bushmaster 30mm) - presumed. (Could be the Mk38 25mm, for compatibility and supply chain reasons with the AOPVs)
I only just noticed that BAE has started offering Rafael's latest Typhoon Mk-30c as the BAE 30 mm MGS since December 2019. The advantages over the existing Typhoon/Mk38 include the adoption of the 30 mm Bushmaster, more than double the ready ammunition, and being better at aerial engagements, presumably more UAV focused than anti-missile, due to being capable of elevations above 65 degrees compared to just 40 degrees and being able to fire Air Burst Munitions. Limited aerial engagement capability should hopefully make the 25 mm Mk38 less likely, while BAE would likely push hard for their own 30 mm MGS since Canada isn't an existing 30 mm DSM 30 user but does use the 25 mm Typhoon and the 12.7 mm Mini-Typhoon which have commonality.30mm Machine Gun System
The 30mm Machine Gun System (MGS) offers superior capability in defending against multiple threats, including unmanned aerial systems (UAS).www.baesystems.com
- Speed: Reputed the SOR required the capability to keep pace with a US CBG, which is widely thought to be around 30 knots. Given the current Halifax class can meet this performance standard, it seems likely that the RCN would like to maintain the capability.
It's a little bit concerning that the challenge to the Type 26 design choice for the CSC which included the accusation it couldn't meet the mandatory speed requirements was tossed out because of lack of standing leaving the specific accusations unaddressed.Trade tribunal tosses U.S. firm's complaint about warship-design competition
A federal trade tribunal has dismissed a challenge to the federal government's handling of a high-stakes competition to design the navy's new $60-billion fleet of warships.www.ctvnews.ca
Rolls-Royce does say the MT30 is available in a 36MW or 40MW configuration and can potentially be configured for even more power so there is an upgrade path available to achieve more speed. Although I believe every MT30 application to-date has been 36MW so perhaps there are undesirable trade-offs with up-rating the engine possibly with fuel efficiency, noise, and/or reliability.
The CSC models have also shown 8 missile launchers above the Mission Bay:
- Boxed Missile Launchers: 8 x NSM
The MT30 output at 36 MW is 49,000 hp. Assuming the CSC waterline length is about 465 feet with a displacement of 8,000 tons, a rough estimate of maximum hull speed is about 29 knots (1.34 x sq root 465). Hull shape features likely produce a slightly higher speed. Maximum hull speed requires about 5 hp per ton of displacement so the MT30 rated at 36 MW should be sufficient. The RR spec doesn't show any dimensional differences between the two ratings.Rolls-Royce does say the MT30 is available in a 36MW or 40MW configuration and can potentially be configured for even more power so there is an upgrade path available to achieve more speed. Although I believe every MT30 application to-date has been 36MW so perhaps there are undesirable trade-offs with up-rating the engine possibly with fuel efficiency, noise, and/or reliability.
Why would the Japanese problems impact upon the Canadian and Spanish acquisitions? The Japanese one is an ashore installation so a different set of issues that have to be mitigated. Did you actually fully read the article and think about the context?Hi Alberto. Interesting take on the CSC fits. The Japanese SPY 7(V) 1 Aegis ashore issue is definitely a troubling one for the CSC and Spanish Frigates and may come back to haunt us in the future with SM-3. Most of the issues in Japan appear to be easily fixed though, however the radiation issue with their citizens might be a hard sell. But if LM can de-risk the naval radar (and perhaps have others come on board i.e. USN) it may not be that much of an issue down the road. Yes, the X Band Illuminator from MDA is a well kept secret however I never thought about MDA collaborating with another company such as Thales with their Sea Fire system perhaps. That would also be a good fit for the CSC. Don't know if the CSC will get the MT 30 or MT 40 gas turbines. One of them of course. Would an MT 40 turbine fit though? Yes the 8 x missile launchers on the top of the Mission Bay do look strangely like NSMs. Sea-Ceptors seem to be the case however my biggest question is will there be either CIWS Blk 1B or RAM/Sea RAM fitted? Later pictures of the CSC, show nothing (Port/St'bd-Midships) as there was before. Just big empty spaces. Only time will tell. Cheers!
