Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?

Chairs? we gave you a enclosed bridge!! Young spoiled pups!!!! Back in the days of sail and steam we did.....blah, blah,blah

 

[JMCanada]

Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/

 

[Kirkhill]

Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/

Do we really want the CSC to be within 11,000 meters of a submarine? (The range of the deck-launched Mk46)

On the other hand - launching M46/54s from a CH-148, or a RHIB or Orca XLAUV deployed from the Mission Bay on the CSC - perhaps that is an alternative to VLS-ASROC?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The subs intent is to get well within that range, it would seem that to have a closer in system is just as important as the longer range system. So what would the response be for a ship equipped with VLS launched torps that detects a sub within 2 km, say right in the middle of a task force and needs to kill it without shooting any friendlies?

 

[JMCanada]

Of course there are other means for ASW , but why refuse to install some torpedo tubes as well? As cited in the article Hobarts do have them but Type 45 destroyers don't.
I am of the opinion that  being they onboard, the CSCs would benefit from a wider set of tools available.

 

[NavyShooter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

This is what I think about with every 'update' to either the JSS or CSC...

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it too provocative to note that the last scene with the drawing being stamped showed the design approved by AOC? 

 

[AlexanderM]

Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/

And/or if we decide at some point to put the anti-ship missiles in the cells. If we do purchase the F-35 and then go with the JSM, they can go in the cells, at which point 32 already isn't enough, just saying.

 

[calculus]

Looks like the radar will be a LM radar (probably a derivative of the LRDR, and perhaps related to this: https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lockheed-indra-develop-s-band-aesa-radar-spanish-navy/), and AEGIS will also be included, in some form or other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_EU486kb8

Watch from 4:30 to 5:10.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good catch!

 

[Lumber]

Jeeze he just revealed more than anything that's been officially published so far!

No what the heck is a solid state radar?

 

[RDBZ]

Of course there are other means for ASW , but why refuse to install some torpedo tubes as well? As cited in the article Hobarts do have them but Type 45 destroyers don't.
I am of the opinion that  being they onboard, the CSCs would benefit from a wider set of tools available.

The Hunter class will be equipped with MU-90 like the Hobarts.

 

[Good2Golf]

No what the heck is a solid state radar?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

what the heck is a solid state radar?

Well, Lumber, that question shows your age - by which I mean you are too young!

"Solid State" electronics was the terminology we (my gen.) used to distinguish  electronics that had transistors instead of lamps as its operating parts. A solid state electronics had no lamps at all.

First "Solid State" Canadian warships: The original IRO's.  ;D

 

[calculus]

Well, Lumber, that question shows your age - by which I mean you are too young!

"Solid State" electronics was the terminology we (my gen.) used to distinguish  electronics that had transistors instead of lamps as its operating parts. A solid state electronics had no lamps at all.

First "Solid State" Canadian warships: The original IRO's.  ;D

I think it also can be used to describe a radar set that has no magnetron, like the newer fixed-panel GaN systems such as SPY-6.

 

[calculus]

In addition to the information from 4:30 to 5:10, which confirms AEGIS and an LM radar for CSC, at 15:00 he describes the system as being modular, and how the radar can be scaled, like EASR and AMDR (SPY-6).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_EU486kb8

 

[Cloud Cover]

It’s a strange comment by the speaker, I thought LRDR was a component of the BMD system?  I think Lockheed and Raytheon’s LRDR systems both use emerging GaN, so I wonder if this is going to be the Lockheed competitor product to Raytheon AMDR on the Burke’s being designed? So many questions from that clip.....

 

[Lumber]

Unfortunately, yes...

 

[Lumber]

It’s a strange comment by the speaker, I thought LRDR was a component of the BMD system?  I think Lockheed and Raytheon’s LRDR systems both use emerging GaN, so I wonder if this is going to be the Lockheed competitor product to Raytheon AMDR on the Burke’s being designed? So many questions from that clip.....

One possible reason is that the person giving the interview may not have been a fully versed subject matter expert. Having gone to a couple of my first defence expos and actually spoken to the reps at these booths, I can say that they are all very knowledgeable (very rarely did I meet a pure salesman), but sometimes their knowledge may have been somewhat limited in scope.

It's possible this gentleman has been in several meetings where they've discussed potential equipment fits for the RN, RAN, and RCN, and he's simply repeating some of the different COAs that have been discussed, as opposed to actually know for sure what's going to happen.  :2c: (although more like 1c)

 

[NavyShooter]

The key I took away from his spiel was that the AEGIS program, which has been around for almost 50 years, is being 'opened up' so that it integrates not just with the SPY-1 RADAR (as found on Arleigh Burke and Ticos) but will now be able to accept RADAR inputs from other types of 3D Radars.

Effectively, it means they're 'open sourcing' the AEGIS program to accept other hardware than it was originally designed for.  The concept of having the Combat Management System software being the 'core' with other sensors and weapons interfaces needing specific software drivers is not new - for us at least. 

Consider, we integrated with our old CCS (pre HCM) a number of systems that needed new drivers to talk to the computers we used.  Examples:  AN/SQS-510 Hull Mounted SONAR or the RIM-162 ESSM.  The ship, as fitted and built was designed to talk with the AN/SQS-505(V6) and the RIM-7P Sea Sparrow - considering the generational leap of change that both of these systems brought to the Halifax Class when they were integrated, and having read the old 'release notes' on the system info CD's that came with the upgraded versions of CMS, I know a bit of what this involved.  Bear in mind, the average CCS computer pre-HCM had an operating software load of less than 500K (384K sticks in my mind for computers with just the SDX and DS modules - the CCMs that had the interfaces to sensors and weapons ran closer to 500K.  Yes...that's KB, not MB...)

It's a sensible thing for them to do - it makes their AEGIS software much more versatile in terms of what platforms it can go on - you won't be tied to a ship that has a SPY-1. 

That's my take on it anyhow...as for the guy in the video's specific system knowledge?  Well, he seems to know a fair bit, and with multiple classes of ships that he seems to be speaking of, it is entirely possible that he might have confused one platform for another.

NS