Canadian Surface Combatant

A bit of background via the 21st Century Tribal Class thread:
kitnut617 said:
And Canada has followed suit ----

nationalpost.com

Design by British firm BAE picked for Canada’s $60B warship replacement program

The Canadian Surface Combatant project will see the Halifax-based Irving build 15 warships, which will form the backbone of the future Royal Canadian Navy
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com
Click to expand...

TomS said:
We didn't have an update on the Canadian program, so here it is. Contract awarded a year ago, after the courts found that one of the losing bidders didn't have standing to protest (Not sure how that works -- if anyone would have standing, surely it would be a party to the competition. But I'm no lawyer, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).

news.usni.org

Canada Confirms Type 26 Design for Surface Combatant Program After Legal Tussle - USNI News

A Lockheed Martin-led industry team was selected for the final design of the Royal Canadian Navy’s future frigate after surviving a legal challenge by a rival contender. Officials in Ottawa confirmed that BAE Systems’ Type 26 Global Combat Ship will provide the template for the Canadian Surface...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
timmymagic said:
TomS said:
It's been selected for the Canadian Type 26, at least.
Click to expand...
Has that been confirmed with a contract?
Presumably as LM are the Prime for Canada?
Click to expand...

Now with an official press release:

www.navalnews.com

MBDA Confirms Sea Ceptor Order for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News

MBDA has been awarded a contract by Lockheed Martin Canada to equip the Royal Canadian Navy's new Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) with the Sea Ceptor air defence weapon system.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Utilising the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) as its effector, Sea Ceptor will undertake the Close-In Air Defence System (CIADS) role on-board the new CSC frigates.


Sea Ceptor provides exceptional self-defence performance, with a rapid response time and a high rate of fire to defeat multiple threats simultaneously. Its state-of-the-art Soft Vertical Launch (SVL) technology enables full 360° coverage with close range performance normally only associated with trainable launcher systems. Sea Ceptor will be integrated with Lockheed Martin Canada’s Combat Management System 330 (CMS 330) as part of a multi-tier air defence capability. The CAMM missiles will be quad packed in Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launcher System (ExLS), which is part of the Mk41 family of vertical launcher systems.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Leonardo will supply to Lockheed Martin Canada four OTO 127/64 LightWeight (LW) Vulcano naval guns, including the Automatic Ammunition Handling System (AAHS) as an optional solution, for the new Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC), which will be built by Irving Shipbuilding Inc. at the Halifax shipyard in Nova Scotia. The first three systems will be installed on-board the new naval units, while the fourth will be used for training activities.

t.co

Leonardo to supply systems for the Royal Canadian Navy’s new Canadian Surface Combatants

t.co t.co

https://twitter.com/x/status/1385242103836463106
View: https://twitter.com/LDO_Canada/status/1385242103836463106
 
Leonardo has taken some noticeable wins off the 5" market lately.
 
WASHINGTON, May 10, 2021 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of AEGIS Combat System and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion.

The Government of Canada has requested to buy four (4) Shipsets of the AEGIS Combat System (ACS); one (1) AEGIS Combat System Computer Program; four (4) Shipsets of AN/SPY-7 Solid State Radar Components; four (4) Shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); and three (3) Shipsets of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System.

Canada – AEGIS Combat System | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil www.dsca.mil

 
www.ultra.group

Ultra secures follow-on order for Canadian Surface Combatant Hull Mounted Sonar from Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. | Ultra

www.ultra.group www.ultra.group

Ultra secures follow-on order for Canadian Surface Combatant Hull Mounted Sonar from Lockheed Martin Canada Inc.

04 October, Dartmouth, Canada: Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems Inc (Ultra) has secured an initial three ship set production order from Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. (Lockheed) for the supply of Hull Mounted Sonars (HMS) for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ship. The latest order is valued at circa $19.5M and further supports manufacturing jobs at Ultra’s recently refurbished and expanded site located in Dartmouth, Halifax.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9111.jpeg
    IMG_9111.jpeg
    74.5 KB · Views: 50
  • IMG_9112.jpeg
    IMG_9112.jpeg
    92.6 KB · Views: 39
  • IMG_9113.jpeg
    IMG_9113.jpeg
    104.8 KB · Views: 35
  • IMG_9114.jpeg
    IMG_9114.jpeg
    210.7 KB · Views: 48
kqcke for you said:
RAM instead of CAMM
Click to expand...

I thought RAM was always part of the spec. Having it, CAMM, and ESSM always did seem a bit extravagant.

But this may mean LM has lost their lead customer for ExLS.

Edit: I went back and looked, and my memory is faulty. CAMM supposedly replaced RAM. Now RAM is back? But where?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm just not seeing it on my potato phone, but I don't see RAM in the render.
 
Moose said:
Maybe I'm just not seeing it on my potato phone, but I don't see RAM in the render.
Click to expand...

I don't see it either. Maybe they are putting VL RAM in ExLS after all? IMG_9114 still shows the 2x3 ExLS launchers aft of the main mast, between the NSM racks.

Failing that, if they remove that ExLS deckhouse, you could reorient the NSM racks athwartships and site one or two RAM launchers aft of them.
 
Here is the 2023 version of this graphic, compared with the 2024. Lots of subtle changes in the newer version -- confirmation of Tomahawk as the Naval Fires Support missile, SEWIP Block II for ESM, Nulka as the offboard EA/decoy, CEC confirmed (and shown on the revised mast), and something that looks a lot like a Leonardo NA30S Mk2 director above the bridge (maybe for directing the 127m for AAW?)

1719604083764.png
1719605011952.png
 
TomS said:
I thought RAM was always part of the spec. Having it, CAMM, and ESSM always did seem a bit extravagant.

But this may mean LM has lost their lead customer for ExLS.

Edit: I went back and looked, and my memory is faulty. CAMM supposedly replaced RAM. Now RAM is back? But where?
Click to expand...
RAM in Exls probaly. Maybe Lockheed did some stuff inhouse which validated that it works.
 
kqcke for you said:
RAM in Exls probaly. Maybe Lockheed did some stuff inhouse which validated that it works.
Click to expand...

They've been pitching RAM Block 2 as an ExLS payload for long enough, I'd be a bit surprised if they hadn't tested it on the DL.
 
Would be interresting how it impacts performance compared to the normal Launcher. Maybe others will be interrested too if its not mutch.
 
TomS said:
Here is the 2023 version of this graphic, compared with the 2024. Lots of subtle changes in the newer version -- confirmation of Tomahawk as the Naval Fires Support missile, SEWIP Block II for ESM, Nulka as the offboard EA/decoy, CEC confirmed (and shown on the revised mast), and something that looks a lot like a Leonardo NA30S Mk2 director above the bridge (maybe for directing the 127m for AAW?)

View attachment 733008
View attachment 733010
Click to expand...
They've also ditched the MDA (MacDonald DetWiller Associates) X-Band Illumination Radar.
 
TomS said:
Hmm. How are they illuminating for SM-2 and ESSM? Or just using active radar versions now?
Click to expand...
SM-2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block II don't need illumination when paired with a highly capable X-band AESA like SPY-6 (USN) or 7 (RCN), the DDGs are mainly retaining illuminators for existing stocks and as a fallback.
 
TomS said:
Hmm. How are they illuminating for SM-2 and ESSM? Or just using active radar versions now?
Click to expand...

Active versions.

Moose said:
SM-2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block II don't need illumination when paired with a highly capable X-band AESA like SPY-6 (USN) or 7 (RCN), the DDGs are mainly retaining illuminators for existing stocks and as a fallback.
Click to expand...

SPY-6 and -7 are both S-Band.
 
TomS said:
They've been pitching RAM Block 2 as an ExLS payload for long enough, I'd be a bit surprised if they hadn't tested it on the DL.
Click to expand...

Over on r/warshipporn someone, allegedly with contacts, has stated its going to be the Mk.49 launcher for RAM replacing the Phalanx mounts. ExLS not in the final design. Apparently data in the fact sheet is correct, renders have not been updated yet.

Wonder what happens with the contract between MBDA and LM for CAMM for CSC...
 
timmymagic said:
Over on r/warshipporn someone, allegedly with contacts, has stated its going to be the Mk.49 launcher for RAM replacing the Phalanx mounts.
Click to expand...
Which Phalanx?
timmymagic said:
ExLS not in the final design. Apparently data in the fact sheet is correct, renders have not been updated yet.
Wonder what happens with the contract between MBDA and LM for CAMM for CSC...
Click to expand...
Yeah that doesn't sound right but who knows
 
MihoshiK said:
CAMM is in an entirely different league from RAM. Ideally you'd have both.
Click to expand...
True, but CAMM overlaps strongly with ESSM Mk2.

Whilst I’m sad to see CAMM out of the programme, I always thought the fitting of both CAMM and ESSM Mk 2 a bit strange.

My preference would have been to cut ESSM though.
 
starviking said:
True, but CAMM overlaps strongly with ESSM Mk2.

Whilst I’m sad to see CAMM out of the programme, I always thought the fitting of both CAMM and ESSM Mk 2 a bit strange.

My preference would have been to cut ESSM though.
Click to expand...

The Canadian's are heavily involved industrially with ESSM, and it does get some bulk from the limited number of Mk.41 via its quadpacking.

I suppose you could say that 2 x21 round RAM launchers is an improvement on 24 x CAMM as well (particularly as they also allow at sea reloads). Even if CAMM is superior, as others have said it overlaps perhaps a little too much with ESSM.

To be honest it makes sense on a lot of levels for the Canadian's to adopt RAM. I guess the questions are why didn't they originally, what happens with the contract that LM signed with MBDA (a lot will depend on the extent and scope of that) and what will they do with the space free up....
 
Naval lookouts newest article shows some MK. 41 (single cell launcher if its true) back there which is probaly wrong like the amount of CAMMs which should have been there stated there.
1000046728.jpg
 
kqcke for you said:
Naval lookouts newest article shows some MK. 41 (single cell launcher if its true) back there which is probaly wrong like the amount of CAMMs which should have been there stated there.
View attachment 734028
Click to expand...

That deckhouse was for two three-cell ExLS, not Mk 41. That would have hosted 24 CAMM.
 
Yeah but tought they could have changed it for MK.41 single cell launcher to fit which i think would be a first time
 
TomS said:
That deckhouse was for two three-cell ExLS, not Mk 41. That would have hosted 24 CAMM.
Click to expand...
Is (the normally reliable) Navy Lookout actually saying that Mk.41 are going amidships? Because if they are they're certainly not Strike Length...and (AFAIK) no one has actually VL'd or integrated RAM Blk II to Mk.41 (or ExLS for that matter).

If they're going down this route I would have thought it would make sense to have self defence Mk.41 for ESSM (which I'm pretty sure fits) amid ships, leaving the 24 Strike Length for'ard for SM-2, Tomahawk, VLA and perhaps a few more ESSM. Then re-use the Phalanx 1B from the Halifax Class and re-role as SeaRAM (they're probably need to buy some surplus ones from the USN to fit all in the class though..).

Budget wise that would make sense...so probably wouldn't happen. It would address the complaint many have made around low missile count...8 Self-Defence Mk.41 could add 32 ESSM, along with 2 x 11 RAM in SeaRAM. With the 24 Strike Length Mk.41 and seperate canisterised NSM that would actually give CSC very reasonable missile stocks.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Is (the normally reliable) Navy Lookout actually saying that Mk.41 are going amidships? Because if they are they're certainly not Strike Length...and (AFAIK) no one has actually VL'd or integrated RAM Blk II to Mk.41 (or ExLS for that matter).
Click to expand...
Yeah and doing it is everything but cheap.
timmymagic said:
If they're going down this route I would have thought it would make sense to have self defence Mk.41 for ESSM (which I'm pretty sure fits) amid ships, leaving the 24 Strike Length for'ard for SM-2, Tomahawk, VLA and perhaps a few more ESSM.
Click to expand...
Is the self defence MK.41 even in production? I remember something about them not being produced anymore.
timmymagic said:
Then re-use the Phalanx 1B from the Halifax Class and re-role as SeaRAM (they're probably need to buy some surplus ones from the USN to fit all in the class though..).
Click to expand...
Or just buy new Mk.49 Launcher.
timmymagic said:
Budget wise that would make sense...so probably wouldn't happen. It would address the complaint many have made around low missile count...8 Self-Defence Mk.41 could add 32 ESSM, along with 2 x 11 RAM in SeaRAM. With the 24 Strike Length Mk.41 and seperate canisterised NSM that would actually give CSC very reasonable missile stocks.
Click to expand...
 
kqcke for you said:
Is the self defence MK.41 even in production? I remember something about them not being produced anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is. Would have thought Tactical Length would have presented some integration issues though given its larger size. The CGI doesn't appear to be big enough for Tactical Length looking at other T-26 side views (the height of a Merlin is converniently roughly the height of tactical length Mk.41)

To be honest it doesn't make sense. Why not just have 32 Mk.41 Strike Length up front like the Australian Hunter Class? The UK's Type 26 has space for 24 CAMM cells up front, so why not 8 Self Defence or Tactical Length Mk.41 there on CSC...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom