- Reaction score
- 21,931
- Points
- 1,260
The boring stuff is an absolute necessity to ensure the sexy stuff can work effectively and get somewhere to be used.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
Some CSC information from CANSEC.
- Safran is providing the New Generation Dagaie System which launches decoys. They are providing one system per ship two launchers total, one port one starboard fitted above the flex deck space on the ASM deck by the looks of things.
They can launch the standard IR and RF decoys (chaff and flare), but can also do an Active Offboard Decoy which is an interesting touch. I expect that last one creates emissions that simulate a ship and can pull radar homing missiles away. It's also able to deploy Anti Torp decoys but I expect that the torp decoy system will be dedicated (I believe ULTRA electronics is providing that).
The Safran vendor told me however the MDA was dealing with the ammunition that it would use, which the MDA vendor didn't know too much about, but that might have been a language barrier (the Safran vendor was very Parisian and between her accented English and my terrible French there might have been a breakdown).
- Speaking of MDA they are providing quite a bit of stuff. X-band fire control radar, laser warning detector, laser dazzler/defence system (not for people but to counter laser targeting), and the ESM communications suite. I was told that they are also optimizing the antenna for the RAVEN ECM. MDA is also integrating the entire EW suite together, or perhaps they are second fiddle to LMC for that integration work. That was a bit unclear to me.
- IrvinGQ is providing a floating decoy.
- Leonardo is going to provide the MARLIN-WS 30mm as the guns for the quarters above the hangar. I'm guessing that they bid both the 30mm and 127mm together beating out BAE for the package.
What is interesting to me is the three options available either Remote Controled, Coax Camera or Independent Line of Sight. If I had to pick an option it would be ILOS. The fact that the gun can take external targeting information from CMS is very interesting. This opens up the potential of the Xband FC radar giving information to the gun which will then automatically swivel and shoot with the appropriate rounds (dual feed so you can select one of two options).
The elevation is -19 to +70 and it has airburst munitions which are the best option vs boat swarms and small UAV's/loitiering munitions
The Canadian T26 variant is starting to diverge significantly from its English and Australian cousins...
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
It is on the combat system side for sure. Marine systems are still very similar in a lot of cases AFAIK. Personally, I think the bias' of the navies involved is showing. Australia is expecting a missile war with China and UK is making a ship that fits a specific role in their carrier TG. Canada is trying to thread the needle for a true multirole frigate with good AAW and good ASW.
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS. Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances. Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that? We don't have effectors...…and BMD.
OceanBonfire
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 1,080
Workshop focuses on design for future Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) | Trident Newspaper
How do you design a warship with its future sailors in mind, given that many of those future sailors are just ten years old, or even younger?
tridentnewspaper.com
- Reaction score
- 22,000
- Points
- 1,360
If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS. Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances. Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that? We don't have effectors...
That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.
MTShaw
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 197
- Points
- 580
All of the vls launchers will be strike length. So they could fit a SM3 if wanted.
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
You've hit the nail on the head. SPY 7 is designed for BMD and Hypersonics. Even if you can't engage the target the US ships in company likely could. Everyone sharing their targeting information reduces that tracking error.
Yep, 24 x Mk41 VLS strike length. Almost every current US ship-launched missile fits in them.
MTShaw
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 197
- Points
- 580
I know that SPY6 is based on two foot cube phased arrays. How does the SPY7 work In relation to the SPY6?
- Reaction score
- 22,000
- Points
- 1,360
Different TRM layout. I understand the SPY-7 is scalable in manufacture, and has provisions for rapid RE&RE for individual TRMs, while the SPy-6’s modules advertise scalability, but I understand the TRMs are not as easily replaceable individually, so the replacement block is a multi-TRM 2ft.sq module. I would note that unless the SPY-6’s inter-module alignment is perfect, there will likely be less coherence across the plane than the 7.
Edit: I’m looking for open source material giving details of the TRM/antenna array difference between 7 and 6. I just remember that what I had seen previously, the RF guy in my had a warm spot for the 7.
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
@MTShaw and @Good2Golf , I think this was posted a long time ago but page 30 of this edition of Canadian Naval Review is pretty good for SPY-7 information.
https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf
The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface. These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).
The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).
Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6). Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.
The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.
https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf
The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface. These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).
The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).
Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6). Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.
The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.
- Reaction score
- 22,000
- Points
- 1,360
Thanks @Underway, hadn’t seen that dit before. I’m remembering something else, but it was FOUO and I wanted to be careful about not outing any details improperly. In the end, I think the 7 will be a very capable system, not just for each CSC afloat, but for putting us into serious player space with our cousins south of the 49th.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 946
- Points
- 810
Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
Oh good it's out. I've had that for months but it was part of an ADM(Mat) presentation and I was lothe to share it outside of the DWAN.
The thing that I think is the highest risk for the project is the CMS 330 and Aegis twinned combat management systems.
- Reaction score
- 5,961
- Points
- 1,090
Here is something I just remembered. It was the only radar system that was fully compliant with the requirements during the bidding process. I don't know what the REQ's were, but that says a lot for the radar. If even CEAFAR didn't meet the REQ's that's one very good system.
Small point, but the label in the above infographic for the MK-41 VLS should read "SM-2 Block 3 C", vice "3 B".
Canada approved for SM-2 Block IIIC missile purchase
Canada has been approved to buy the latest medium-range active version of the US Navy’s (USN’s) Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) anti-air missile for its next-generation...
www.janes.com
