CANADA

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by NickC »

Will be interesting to see which radar LM has chosen, nothing obvious in their stable of radars, might use the volume search Spanish Indra S-band radar, LM are assisting in development and assuming supplying their new generation of polarised GaN T/R Ms. Unknown is if the Canadians also requiring a shorter range high definition X-band radar to give longer range warning at sea level of sea skimming missile attacks as with the Hunter.

If the Canadians buying new generation ESSM Block 2 and SM-2s (~90 nm range), both with active RF homing heads, do not expect FCR will be needed, very unlikely buying the very long range SM-6 due to cost. Raytheon are re-opening the SM-2 production line after receiving orders for 330 missiles from Australia, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Netherlands for the new version.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: CANADA

Post by Halidon »

NickC wrote:Will be interesting to see which radar LM has chosen, nothing obvious in their stable of radars, might use the volume search Spanish Indra S-band radar, LM are assisting in development and assuming supplying their new generation of polarised GaN T/R Ms. Unknown is if the Canadians also requiring a shorter range high definition X-band radar to give longer range warning at sea level of sea skimming missile attacks as with the Hunter.
LM had an AMDR/SPY-6/EASR competing architecture, it would not shock me if they wanted to use CSC as their vessel, pun intended, for putting that out on the market. If anyone can tiptoe around a "non-developmental" requirement it's probably Lockheed.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by matt00773 »

NickC wrote:Will be interesting to see which radar LM has chosen, nothing obvious in their stable of radars, might use the volume search Spanish Indra S-band radar, LM are assisting in development and assuming supplying their new generation of polarised GaN T/R Ms. Unknown is if the Canadians also requiring a shorter range high definition X-band radar to give longer range warning at sea level of sea skimming missile attacks as with the Hunter.

If the Canadians buying new generation ESSM Block 2 and SM-2s (~90 nm range), both with active RF homing heads, do not expect FCR will be needed, very unlikely buying the very long range SM-6 due to cost. Raytheon are re-opening the SM-2 production line after receiving orders for 330 missiles from Australia, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Netherlands for the new version.
I've not seen anything actually stated regarding the radar, but visually it looks like the the Kronos Dual Band radar with both X and C band panels on each face. The Quad 3000 panel (C band) has over 2500 GaN TRMs - roughly the same number as per Sampson (though with GaAs).

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/kronos_dual_band

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by Mercator »

NickC wrote:If the Canadians buying new generation ESSM Block 2 and SM-2s (~90 nm range), both with active RF homing heads, do not expect FCR will be needed, very unlikely buying the very long range SM-6 due to cost. Raytheon are re-opening the SM-2 production line after receiving orders for 330 missiles from Australia, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Netherlands for the new version.
Sure. SM-6 will be more expensive but also much more capable. And it's Canada. Without a doubt, it's possible they won't buy the SM-6. But if it is still their intention to produce an AAW version of the T26, I would expect it to be armed accordingly. Otherwise there's nothing to distinguish it from a GP version.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Since when did the Eurofighter consortium become Airbus. Was it done on the QT because I cannot remember hearing anything about it.
It isn't the full consortium. It depends on which country is looking to procure. Each partner member was allocated sales territories. The UK under BAE has done the lion share of the overseas sales. Italy has got the Kuwait order. Apart from that they've all been hopeless. Spain and Germany have managed to do bugger all apart from some sales of second hand T1 by the Germans (and even then the Austrians are looking to get out of it). It would have been better for all concerned if the UK (and perhaps Italy) had been given all overseas sales territories.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

Mercator wrote:I think in time though, SM-6 will be more popular.
Whats the cost of an SM-6 though? About $4m was the last I heard (similar price as the SM-3). That might mean it remains only with the current users who can afford it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Very few nations are purchasing the SM-6 for their platforms. The latest versions of both the ESSM and SM-2 are more than capable of equipping a AAW platform. In fact it is quite surprising the Canadians are actually planning a AAW variant of the T-26. My best guess is that it will have only the minimum enhancements to make it compatible with the SM-2, differing as little as possible form the base design.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by Mercator »

Timmymagic wrote:
Mercator wrote:I think in time though, SM-6 will be more popular.
Whats the cost of an SM-6 though? About $4m was the last I heard (similar price as the SM-3). That might mean it remains only with the current users who can afford it.
Some dude looked into the budget papers and reckons ESSM $2.2M and SM-6 $3.9M. No word on SM-2, but I figure $3M can't be far off.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2018/ ... costs.html

Either way I find it interesting that the SM-2 production line was closed in 2013. And that when it was restarted, the USN did not buy in.

It's just my gut feeling, but I think if the USN is serious about SM-6, the costs will come down. And with hypersonic missiles in the mix, I think range increasingly becomes a factor. I also think that to properly exploit the range of these weapons, the right sort of integration with links and CEC become a big deal as well. SM-2 is undoubtedly a bargain right now and definitely useful, but I honestly think SM-6 will eclipse it.

But you know, I'm just a keyboard warrior now... :-)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

You are probably right regarding the price of the SM-6 falling with time and a number of nations will adopt it over time. AS long as a vessel has a VLS and can use the SM-2 the cost of a future upgrade shouldn't be too much in principal, but the enhanced SM-2 is a good place to start for a AAW platform.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by seaspear »

I there information on the type 26 configured for aaw role on how many vls required in this configuration is there the possibility of using the mission bay to host these

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by NickC »

This October Denmark bought 50 SM-2 Block IIIAs for $143M, $2.9M each, SM-6 Block IA is $3.9M per USN FY2019 Justification Book excl'd R&D (overseas sales required to include premium for contribution to R&D, though can be waived) and the new exo-atmosphere HTK SM-3 IIA ~$40M each, under joint development by US/Japan.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: CANADA

Post by Halidon »

seaspear wrote:I there information on the type 26 configured for aaw role on how many vls required in this configuration is there the possibility of using the mission bay to host these
I've been monitoring for this information, so far there's not much. I'm hopeful there will be a rollout with additional information in the near future now that a selection has been made, or at least once they have a contract signed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Mercator wrote:I also think that to properly exploit the range of these weapons, the right sort of integration with links and CEC become a big deal as well. SM-2 is undoubtedly a bargain right now and definitely useful, but I honestly think SM-6 will eclipse it.
+
NickC wrote:This October Denmark bought 50 SM-2 Block IIIAs for $143M, $2.9M each, SM-6 Block IA is $3.9M
There is a point about networking the sensors, to make the best use of the very expensive shooters. E.g
"The site in Deveselu is part of a larger effort to protect European Allies against ballistic missiles. Other components include a radar facility in Turkey, four U.S. guided-missile destroyers in Spain and a headquarters in Ramstein, Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands are upgrading their frigates with radar capabilities. The United States will also start construction of a second land-based interceptor site in Poland on Friday (13 May) that is due to come online by 2018. "
- don't have the specifics about what the Dutch are planning
- Denmark will join the shooter group through a staged approach: sensors, SM-2 (and F-35) now; SM-6 next... onto those "budget frigates" :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose if Canada wished to contribute to Anti Missile Defence of North America than installing the SM-6 onto the AAW variants would make sense but if they just want a area AAW vessels the SM-2 will do the job.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by Mercator »

I think it's the ABM environment of the Pacific that challenges the baseline capability of Pacific navies. Especially if they intend to operate in defence of Japan and the first island chain. That will be the challenge of a Canadian AAW escort.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by seaspear »

With Canada situated near the Artic circle they have other concerns than waters off Japan

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by Mercator »

And yet here they are checking North Korean merchant vessels with us today. Based out of Japan.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

Looks like Rafale is out of the Canadian fighter competition. Still think this is F-35's to lose...with probably the Typhoon in second place (can't see F-18E/F getting it on political grounds). The only complication is if F-35 remains politically impossible or if a backtrack gets underway. If that does happen F-35 is nailed on.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... tition-to/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:Still think this is F-35's to lose...with probably the Typhoon in second place (can't see F-18E/F getting it on political grounds)
The thing is
"The key mission for Canada’s next fleet of fighter jets will be patrolling the skies of North America in tandem with U.S. forces as part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). In that context, the new fighter jets will have to be able to communicate securely with Canadian and American forces, which requires state-of-the-art encryption and data-sharing technologies."
and that has already been tested with Brit Typhoons (and whoever's F-35s)
- we can't afford it (I hear)
- but the Canadians probably can. Add in the campaign (during elections) against the F-35 and how Boeing gave primacy to their civil aviation production lines (probs? trounced the changes for their fighter product)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Will AAR be a factor in all this given the area the Canadians have to cover? Canada's existing AAR asset is the CC-150 T Polaris which doesn't have a boom. Works fine with the Current CF-18s but is the F-35A is chosen, and the reduction in the size of the FJ fleet they will need boom tankers. Ideally the F-35C would be the best choice but would the A variant plus three or four new tankers a cheaper option. Of course the Typhoon doesn't need a boom and if CFTs were part of the package it could have an impact on the choice. The best solution for Canada though, at least in my mind would be the F/A-18E in its current and/or planned guise. It ticks all the boxes and is probably the most affordable. If offered at the right price and with sufficient off sets it could be a case of let bygones be bygones.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:The best solution for Canada though, at least in my mind would be the F/A-18E in its current and/or planned guise. It ticks all the boxes and is probably the most affordable. If offered at the right price and with sufficient off sets it could be a case of let bygones be bygones.
I'd disagree with that. The F-35 is the only way for the RCAF to stay relevant through its lifetime of service. The Boeing angle is pretty serious, I don't think politically they could go down the route of contracting with them as feelings are running high. Remember this is a nation that cancelled it's Merlin purchase 25 years ago then proceeded to carry on with SeaKing for years, at the risk of service personnel's lives, and then when they had to procure an ASW helicopter out of desperation picked a paper design from Sikorsky over the Merlin that was actually in service, then proceeded to accept delay after delay for years and increased costs when they were able to cancel the contract and still haven't managed to get the Cyclone into full service whilst Merlin has since been upgraded further....they're stubborn to say the least....

The CC-150 are actually planned to be replaced in the future, the timeline will probably intersect with new fighter aircraft so the boom/probe and drogue issue won't be a problem for the fighter competition. They were used extensively for Afghanistan support and they're 30 years old. I'd be betting on the A330 MRTT for that one...the KC-46 just isn't as capable and is made by Boeing...

The really interesting procurement in the future would be the CP-140 Aurora replacement. Realistically only the P-8 Poseidon from Boeing...or the Kawasaki P-1 can do the job, unless Airbus can pull their finger out on an A319 MPA in the timeframe. I suspect the existing F-18,Chinook and Globemasters will be the only Boeing products with Canadian roundels for some time....but if anything shifts them from that stance it would be the P-8 at a date in the future, not the F-18E/F.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The best solution for Canada though, at least in my mind would be
to take up the offer Russia made to India: a mere $3.7 bn for the whole prgrm of PAK-FA, including a number of flying prototypes
- have a fighter that is usable across the vast expanses of the Arctic
- has a loadout of weapons that means it can stay on task, after the first encounter
- and will ( :D ) resurrect the indigenous aircraft industry... now that Bombardiers are made by Shorts and Airbus (somewhere nr Virginia)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

They could always try to redo the Arrow for the 21st century, or keep the CF-18s going for as long as or longer than they kept the CF-101s around and join up with the UK and see what comes out of "Tempest". Frequent trips to the "Bone yard" would provide many spares and a number of airframes will be coming available for stripping in the next few years. Being serious they need to avoid being pressured into a purchase of the F-35A as I don't think it is the platform they really need.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Though Gripen E has grown from the toddler F https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-26vOrJR0nQg/ ... visual.jpg closer to the size of most modern fighters, for Canada's circumstances https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5 ... 0306c3a8b7 it is simply just too small
- a pity as it is more British (40%?) than the Typhoon
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

How many airframes are they after, enough for three squadrons?

Post Reply