By Mikaël Perron, 7 October 2021
There are two pages on the Lockheed Martin Canada's website that display a new CG version of the CSC.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/index.html
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/canadian-programs.html
The new CG pictures display the ship with the Leonardo 127mm/64 gun but the main difference is a totally redesigned main mast that brings the radars much higher but that probably greatly improve their performances. The new CGI still show only a 24-cell MK41 launcher although the DND specs mention 32 cells. The satellite antennas on both sides of the ExLS launchers aft of the main funnel are now moved just behind the bridge and seem to be smaller. We can also notice a new island aft of the Multi-role Boat bay that support some kind of cylindrical device that is unlikely to be a simple life raft! The CSC file was strangely absent from the elections. I wonder what the next news about it will be!
8 thoughts on “New Computer Graphics of CSC”
Hi Mikaël. This is the first time I’ve seen this CGI graphic from Lockheed Martin. Yes, there do seem to be some changes from past LM CSC Frigate graphics. My questions are, why would they move the satellite antennas from mid-ships on either side of the CAAMS launchers to astern of the bridge? Could they be thinking of increasing the launcher cells from 24 to 32 or more? Perhaps that may be the reason for only 24 VLS cells aft of the gun? The new island abaft of the Multi-roll boat bay may perhaps be for a DEW laser system port/stbd? The elongated mast is also puzzling. Perhaps for more arrays for the SPY 7 and putting it up higher for better ranges? I also notice perhaps a larger X Band illumination radar from MDA just below. Could this be for a more advanced radar like the Thales Sea Fire 500 AESA X Band Illumination radar? We just don’t know what we don’t know because of all the secrecy from the government.
I David, I definitely agree that we need to know more about the project progress. In a stark contrast, south of the border, there are regular report to the congress about the Constellation class frigate program.
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/28/report-to-congress-on-constellation-class-frigate-program-ffg-62-7
Something like that would be a bare minimum over here.
Totally agree Mikaël. The CSC design phase process should be regularly updated as the Constellation class has been from both LM and the government so that all Canadians have a good idea with where we stand WRT ship capabilities. The government however doesn’t seem to want the Canadian public to know what the CSC frigate will have and their capabilities. Why is this so? Answer…..costs! Instead of accepting that the Canadian people are a lot smarter than the government thinks, they choose to keep everything a secret for years and years.
A new 360 degree top-to-bottom & front to back graphic of this latest CGI CSC Frigate design as the US Constellation class has would also help to define what exactly these new features are and what this means for the design phase. When will this phase be finished? Not soon enough!!
You guys are getting hosed for the CSC. 5 billion CAD a ship! Holy cow! It would be around 3 Billion CAD for a Burke FLT III Destroyer. If I lived in Canada, I would have my pitchfork out demanding answers
Well, we want answers because there is too much secrecy surrounding the project. Burkes are being built south of the border for more than 30 years by two experiment shipyards. It helps keep cost under control. Get them built over here under the NSS and they would end up costing much more because we are building back an industry in the process. Also, we don’t count the cost of the project the same way. CSC project includes price of almost everything from the design to the first two years of spare parts. Infrastructure, training aid and much more are incorporated. Not to mention that the cost of operating both design differ a lot; you need at least a hundred fewer persons per ship to operate. Burkes always operate with at least to LM2500 gas turbines running burning a crazy amount of fuel!
I agree you deserver answers. Bath Ironworks and Ingalls are not experimental shipyards. What keeps cost under control is the scale of production. Would you not want to build back that industry and skilled workers? You do not have to design anything with the Burke class. Just build up infrastructure, Canadian sailors could train on active US Burke’s. You also have 171 billion barrels of oil in your reserves. I posted this Under Aussie subs thinking it was talking about Canadian subs.
With the release of the new design drawing of the UK’s Dreadnaught SSBN. There is a very interesting bit of technology that was revealed in the drawings. Using the new hull design and building a Type 216 class SSN would be perfect for the Canadian Navy. Is almost double the size of the Type 212CD class, which looks like a capable boat. Since there is no set design for the Type 216 yet, private/RCN could work together with TKMS to build a sub to fit Canada’s needs. The new hull tech combined with AIP and a conservative 18000km range, VLS capability, littoral and deep sea operations are a great fit for Canada. The type 218 SG class for Singapore is half the size at 900 million USD/ 1.125 billion CAD. A quick design scale up and figuring in the cost for the new hull tech could put you under 2.5 billion CAD per boat possibly less. No one wants a Barracuda 2.0 situation. Acquisition of 12-18 boats would drive the cost further down, build 4-6 overseas. Build infrastructure for two yards, one west coast and one east coast. Canada could crank the boats out and maintain them. Foreign sales could be possible as well. I can think of many countries could use a few of these new style submarines. New hull tech with AIP and hull shape would make a potent sub. The Russians are catching up quickly, not quite equal to US or UK subs. They are going to present a serious problem in the Arctic Ocean, for all of NATO. The longer the wait, the longer it takes to get the subs and the price will keep rising. Submarines are going to be essential for Canada in the Arctic. F-35s/F-18E/fs/Gripen’s/*F-15EX perfect for RCAF*, the CSC (Barracuda 2.0 for Canada) and submarines. These are the biggest issues I see for the Canadian Armed Forces. It it a lot of money, but if Canada met the 2% GDP NATO minimum that would be enough extra money support these programs, increase weapon systems made in Canada, make improvements to existing bases, and build a few more. Canada needs to accelerate all these programs. It needs to provide for its own defense and contribute to allied nations in times of war and peace. Good luck, I hope the politicians get it together.
SSN=SSB and my grammar errors, are Crown Royal’s fault :)