CANADA

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: CANADA

Post by xav »

Royal Canadian Navy Unveils New Details on CSC Frigates
Image
The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) released the latest details on the configuration of its next generation frigates: the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). They will be heavily armed, featuring Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk and both ESSM and Sea Ceptor!
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

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

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

xav wrote: Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk
Perhaps we will wake up, some day, to the idea that the RN may need to sink some ships? Tomahawk, though, seems to be the land attack version. I wonder if USN ever took the anti-ship (capable against moving targets) version into use?

If Seaceptor for some is a limited-area defence weapon, the Canadians, it seems, see it as a CIWS... of course on smaller ships it can be both.
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)

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: CANADA

Post by Blackstone »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
xav wrote: Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk
Perhaps we will wake up, some day, to the idea that the RN may need to sink some ships? Tomahawk, though, seems to be the land attack version. I wonder if USN ever took the anti-ship (capable against moving targets) version into use?

If Seaceptor for some is a limited-area defence weapon, the Canadians, it seems, see it as a CIWS... of course on smaller ships it can be both.
As Xav points out in the article, Canada saw ExLS-launched Sea Ceptor as a RAM/SeaRAM competitor. A superior competitor.

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

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if USN ever took the anti-ship (capable against moving targets) version into use?
On a limited scale but they are now reintroducing it as an interim very long range Anti-Ship Weapon, at least on its SSNs.

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

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Blackstone wrote:Canada saw ExLS-launched Sea Ceptor as a RAM/SeaRAM competitor. A superior competitor.
This should cause the Royal Navy to rethink the load out for the T-26, at least the remaining five Batch 2 ships. With an additional MK41 forward and six, three cell ExLS launchers, four forward and two amidships, we could increase the number of Sea Ceptor carried by 50% and the number of Mk41 silos by a third. It would also allow the removal of the planned Phalanx Block1B from the vessels, freeing up more for teh RFA and smaller RN vessels if required (B2 Rivers on the stern :D ).

Adopting the NSM as the next anti-Ship Missile buy placing follow on orders after the interim capability requirement is met and later purchasing the FCASW if it is cleared for the Mk41 as the plan seems to be.

Finally fit, like the Canadians two double launchers for lightweight Torpedoes, in our case initially Stingray, but later what ever follows on from the Mk54 being purchased for the P-8. Though the Merlin HM2 will be the T-26's primary ASW weapon delivery platform, giving the ship an on board capability is a good idea and should not be a costly modification even for the three Batch 1 ships. They could even us the twin deck mounts from the retiring T-23 at a push, possibly.

We would essentially end up with a vessels very similar to the Canadian design but with different electronics mainly, which I know is actually still a big difference.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Simon82

Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Jdam »

Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk, ESSM and Sea Ceptor, Canada is not messing about when arming these ships :wtf:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: CANADA

Post by Tempest414 »

Jdam wrote:Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk, ESSM and Sea Ceptor, Canada is not messing about when arming these ships :wtf:
Good to see someone is trying to get it right

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Finally fit, like the Canadians two double launchers for lightweight Torpedoes, in our case initially Stingray,.
Man would have thought that the Canadians will hear from their "parent" RN that onboard torpedo launchers are useless... :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

Better to have something rather than nothing. What happens is the Merlin is already prosecuting a contact and another appears relatively close by. Decoys will help but.......

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:What happens is the Merlin is already prosecuting a contact and another appears relatively close by
Then the T26 has made royal bollox of everything and they are already dead.

I do think the case for LWTs on surface ships is pretty marginal, particularly for blue water operations. The combination of relatively short torpedo and seeker range means that you have to be pretty much on top of your target to be effective (hence dropping one right on top of your target from a helicopter) . There may be a case in littoral ops and against conventional submarines (and that is mainly a case of denying access to areas by launching LWTs in search patterns), but I think it would be more productive to look at something more capable (whether torpedo or missile). Maybe we should be looking at HWTs on surface ships
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by SW1 »

Maybe but what do you do if your being hunted by a submarine and your helicopter has gone tech if your ship has no torpedos. The Australians and Canadians have had a similar view of the opposition and decided its still required.

When you design a modern arleigh burke sized equivalent and both the main buyers of the product are using it for full aaw and asw one wonders why we are not.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by Scimitar54 »

What about some ASROC in the VLS as an alternative? :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Simon82

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

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Every construct can be used to squeeze out a few extra dollars (CAD), but once this allied country is named Canada and the UK likewise should put a marker towards it in defence industrial co-operation:
https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/ip-disp ... -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)

Glen
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 08 May 2020, 22:58
Canada

Re: CANADA

Post by Glen »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Every construct can be used to squeeze out a few extra dollars (CAD), but once this allied country is named Canada and the UK likewise should put a marker towards it in defence industrial co-operation:
https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/ip-disp ... -frigates/
The foundation for this article, published November 23, 2020, is a story posted by the CBC on August 11, 2017, about IP concerns during the CSC bidding process, three years ago. Unless the author has more, yet to be revealed, information on the subject, his understanding of the situation seems to be incorrect, with no relevance to the current CSC build program.

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

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Glen wrote:no relevance to the current CSC build program
Thanks, the story did raise eyebrows (at least mine).
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)

Ares
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 19:19
Japan

Re: CANADA

Post by Ares »

New system unproven, says expert
In a statement, the Department of National Defence insisted that the cost of adapting the radar to the Canadian frigate design "will be covered as part of the ($140 million) long-lead contract" signed with Irving Shipbuilding in early 2019, after Lockheed Martin was selected to design the new ships.

There is another concern, though.

The fact that the AN/SPY-7 "has not been marinized and deployed on a ship at sea is significant," said Perry, a defence procurement expert and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

"It means on the spectrum of developmental production, it is far closer to the purely developmental end of the spectrum than something that is deployed and has been proven on a couple of different navies around the world," he said.

Lockheed Martin officials dispute that assessment, saying all of the components have been used on warships in one way or another, including the cabinets used to house the electronics.

"The SPY-7 radar is not in development. It was designed for use as a maritime radar and is based on mature technology that has been thoroughly tested and is being adapted and scaled for a variety of customers in both land-based and at-sea applications," said Gary Fudge, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems.

The company officials concede it will take design work to integrate the system into the new Canadian frigates, but insist that would be true of any other new radar system.

There are still risks, Perry said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigat ... -1.5822606
Looks like Canada is in the same concern that Japan have.
Apparently, Lockheed Martin said to Japan MoD and law makers that SPY-7 is outperform SPY-6 in every aspect and even cheaper.
For instance, according to Masahisa Sato, Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party's Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, LM gives specific numbers and claims that SPY-7's continuous operation time is 30000 hours whilst SPY-6 is only 470 hours and detecting range, height and number of simultaneous tracking are also greater than rival system.
The curious is why the US navy hasn't adopted the SPY-7 if it that better.

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

Re: CANADA

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aegis Build 20 is on its way so what reports we will get during that journey will be interesting.
... sorry, not Canada specific, but relevant to the issue
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)

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: CANADA

Post by xav »

Ultra Awarded Subcontract To Provide TLFAS Variable Depth Sonar For CSC
Image
Ultra is delighted to announce a contract award to commence work on the key Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) system for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program – named the Towed Low Frequency Active Sonar (TLFAS).

This subcontract moves the development of CSC’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability from the program definition phase into the full manufacture and delivery of the vessels suite of sonars.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... r-for-csc/

User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by 2HeadsBetter »


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

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

abc123 wrote: 10 Nov 2020, 12:29
Lord Jim wrote:
Finally fit, like the Canadians two double launchers for lightweight Torpedoes, in our case initially Stingray,.
Man would have thought that the Canadians will hear from their "parent" RN that onboard torpedo launchers are useless... :think:
They've only got Mk.46 so they might as well be...

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

Re: CANADA

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Nov 2020, 20:19 Finally fit, like the Canadians two double launchers for lightweight Torpedoes, in our case initially Stingray, but later what ever follows on from the Mk54 being purchased for the P-8.
Stingray Mod 1 isn't going anywhere on Merlin and surface ships. After that it will be the Future Lightweight Torpedo, which will either be Stingray Mod 2 or a new design. Hopefully that will also transition onto P-8, if Stingray doesn't in the interim.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by R686 »

2HeadsBetter wrote: 28 Nov 2021, 09:51 Boeing down but not quite out:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing ... -1.6262851
Has the RCAF receive all the RAAF F18 bought or are they still waiting now the classic F/A18 have been retired

https://www.aerotime.aero/29574-austral ... t-fa-18abs

Are scrub that question the very next link to pop up answerd that question


https://adbr.com.au/canada-receives-fin ... b-hornets/

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

Re: CANADA

Post by Lord Jim »

It appears that the F-35A has won the contest to replace the RCAF's aging CF-18 (or CF-118) Hornets, planning to purchase 88 aircraft of a total of US.$15 Billion. The Saab Gripen came second and Canada has left to option open to purchase this aircraft should problems arise whilst negotiating the contract for the F-35s.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: CANADA

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 06:01 It appears that the F-35A has won the contest to replace the RCAF's aging CF-18 (or CF-118) Hornets, planning to purchase 88 aircraft of a total of US.$15 Billion. The Saab Gripen came second and Canada has left to option open to purchase this aircraft should problems arise whilst negotiating the contract for the F-35s.
Yes read it a day or so ago, so much for Trudeau pledge on F35

Well I guess the only silverling is the RAAF off loaded some classic before hand and that they will get the latest variant off the production line.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: CANADA

Post by SW1 »

Once Boeing attempted to destroy there domestic aerospace business the Canadian government at least had the backbone to show them the door unlike our lot, this was probably were it was gonna end up they will of wasted quite a lot to get here mind.

Post Reply