By David Dunlop, 23 November 2022
Since LM will be updating its CSC design phase before the end of this year, I would like to give Forum members an update on what we can say we know so far with some confidence. Here is the latest update as of 22 November 2022 for the CSC Type 26 Frigate weapons and systems design with updated LM CSC Type 26 Graphics. Notice that the number of MK 41 VLS Cells has been dropped to 24 cells vice 32. Also the mast is much taller. The crew size seems to have increased as well from 208 to 210 personnel. Also notice the tonnage has increased to 8,080 tonnes although that will not be the full-load weight (probably around 9,400 tonnes). If any forum members can add or subtract from my guesses please let me know. Cheers!
1. 1 X LM Solid State 3D Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) "S" Band Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)-SPY 7 (V) 3 Phased Array Air Search Radar - Confirmed by Lockheed Martin (LM).
2. 1 X Solid State AESA "X" Band Illumination Radar supported by MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA) in Richmond British Columbia (below the SPY 7 radar mast-latest graphics), with integration into the CMS 330 system-this may be an MDA built radar or IMO it may be an existing radar from Thales (possibly the Sea Fire 500 AESA Phased Array Radar) however MDA is not talking. Any enlightenment on this radar from any forum members, would be appreciated.
3. "X" & "S" Bands Navigation Radars
4. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA) - Electronic Warfare Suite System & Chaff launchers
5. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA) - Laser Warfare Defence System (again MDA is not talking).
6. 24 x MK 41 strike length VLS-ESSM2, SM II/IIIC (fitted for but not with SM3/6); Raytheon Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM).
7. Combat Information Management Systems - Links 11/16/22/GCCS-M; Mode 5S Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)
8. Light Weight (LW) MK 54 Torpedo system and magazine with twin launcher tubes
9. Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (Magellan/TKMS)
10. 6 x 4 ExLS VLS-Aft of the funnel (Sea Ceptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
11. 2 x 4 Quad packs Kongsberg NSM-Port/Stbd Above Mission Bay.
12. Main Gun: 1 x 5 inch Leonardo OTO Melara 127mm Light Weight (LW) Land Attack and Anti-Air Vulcano gun. This gun will confer the CSC ships with the ability to fire extended-range, precision-guided Vulcano munitions – both in guided long-range and the ballistic extended-range versions – and conventional AA ammunition.
13. Secondary Guns: 2 x OTO Melara Marlin MS 30mm Stabilized Rapid Fire Naval Gun Systems from Leonardo-(Port/Stbd of Flight Deck)
14. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Sensor Netting-Integrated Cyber Defence System; Integrated Bridge & Navigation System from OSI
15. Internal/External Communications Suite-HF/UHF/SHF/VHF/SATCOM from L3 Harris.
16. Electro Optical & Infrared Systems; Radio/Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM) to include: Frequency Identification; Laser Warning & Countermeasures System; Radar/Radio Frequency Electronic Jammers; Electronic Decoy Systems.
17 Combat Management System: Lockheed Martin CMS 330/Aegis Combat System (ACS) in support of Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC).
18. Ultra Electronics Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) - Ultra S2150.
19. Ultra Electronics Active/Passive Towed Array Sonar; Towed Torpedo Countermeasures - Sea Sentor S21700.
20. Sonobouy Processing System (SPS) from General Dynamics with expendable Acoustic Countermeasures.
21. Combined Diesel Electric Gas Turbine (CODLOG) Propulsion System to include 1 X Rolls Royce RR/MT 30 Gas Turbine; 2 X Electronic Motors from General Electric; 4 X RR MTU Diesel Generators; Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) from L3 Harris.
22. CH 148 Cyclone Sikorsky (S-92) ASW Helicopter; SKELDAR V200 UAV systems from Saab - known as CU-176 "Gargoyle"
23. Speed-approximately 27-30 kts. Statement of Requirement (SOR) required this capability for US Carrier Battle Group (CBG) Ops.
24. Crew Complement-210 max crew (fitted with separate female quarters)
26 thoughts on “Latest Known LM CSC Design Phase Update … So Far”
I would note that the reduction in Mk41 cells from 32 to 24 was already officially noted in the beginning of this year, and was in the infographic that Ted Barnes shared back in March: https://www.navalreview.ca/2022/03/new-csc-graphic/
Same goes for the displacement. It seems the only changes between then and now are the firming up of the accommodations at 210 (instead of “~208”) and the unlisting of the Tomahawk specifically for the “Naval Fire Support Missile”.
When counting VLS cells for the CSC, one should also remember the 6 quad-packed Sea Ceptor silos behind the funnel, bringing the total VLS count to 30.
Hi Tim. Good to hear from you. As I said this was only an update on what we can say we know so far with some confidence. Just putting everything together for forum members to consider. Although the CIAD Sea Ceptor quad-pack truly is a VLS system, it is not considered in the same category as the LM MK 41 VLS system and is considered a last defence system like CIWS or RAM systems (although with longer effective ranges). They also don’t indicate that the Naval Fire Support Missile in this latest CSC Graphic is indeed the Tomohawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) perhaps to dilute the fact that it is an offensive weapon system for public consumption. What I am really interested in knowing from MDA is what “X” Band Illumination Radar they are developing as this will be an integral part of the Fire Control sequence for all AAW weapon systems on board and also used for medium range surface surveillance. As I said, I am guessing it to be a “Canadianized” version of the French Sea Fire 500 Illumination radar. If you have any suggestions on this MDA radar, that would be very helpful. Cheers!
Hello again forum members. I had neglected to add some very important features of the CSC Frigate design listed below and expanded on the Marlin 30mm gun features. See below:
1. Secondary Guns: 2 x MARLIN 30 Stabilized Rapid Fire 30mm 174 ATK MK44 Naval Gun Systems (from Leonardo-Port/Stbd of Flight Deck) with RC-Remotely Controlled; COAX-“Coaxial Electro-Optical Sensor Suite” and ILOS-Independent Line Of Site able to fire HE-High Explosive/AP-Armor-Piercing/TP-Target Practice/ABM-Air Burst Munitions. ROF-Rate Of Fire-SS-Single Shot/100-200 RPMs; Day & IR Camera. MER-Maximum Effective Range-3500 Meters. Effective against any surface threats/Helicopters and Drones. Outstanding accuracy and precision; automatic Duel-Feed system; Stealthy Design; Video Tracking Capability; High reliability and ease of maintenance with no deck penetration.
2. Internal/Secure External Communications Suite-HF/UHF/SHF/VHF/SATCOM from L3 Harris.
3. Ultra Electronics Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) known as Towed Low Frequency Active Sonar-(TLFAS), the system is designed to identify and track stealthy submarines in harsh sea environments.
4. CSC Reconfigurable Multi-Mission Bay-featuring reconfigurable mission and boat bays including a 9m rescue boat, two 9-12m multi-role boats, Rolls Royce’ mission bay handling system, and modular mission support (standard 20 sea containers, vehicles, boats) capacity.
5. 1 x CH 148 Cyclone Sikorsky (S-92) ASW Helicopter; SKELDAR V200 UAV systems (possibly x 2) from Saab-known as CU-176 “Gargoyle”.
Cheers!
Interesting that these ships’ main components are all defensive with little offensive ability. Even looking at the mk41, what is the expected loadout going to be? Having said that, it would be nice to have another gun as well maybe trade out the two 30mm for a 40mm Bofors that can engage surface and aerial targets
Hello Wayne. Yes, although Canada is trying to develop a CSC “Frigate” with some AAW defensive and Land attack offensive capabilities to replace our Iroquois class destroyer capabilities, this CSC Frigate is firstly an ASW platform with mainly defensive AAW capabilities. The MK 41 silos may have a mixture of Extended Length as well as Standard length silos, or possibly all Extended Length silos to also include possible SM3/SM6 or Hypersonic Cruise missiles for the future. We just don’t know that as yet. There is just no room for another 5 inch or 76mm gun on the CSC. That would substantially increase the overall weight (quite possibly well over 10000 tons) of the CSC as well as speed and stability characteristics. Although 40mm Bofors vice 30mm Marlins would be nice to have, again not feasible for the same reasons as another 5 inch gun. Remember, Canada is not attempting to build a Ticonderoga class cruiser. If we wanted an AAW capability, we might just have thought about the Type 45 destroyers as well however much too much in $$. I think what we are getting is probably the best way to go. Cheers!
Thanks David. The ships are big and expensive with only 24 mk 41 vls versus an Arleigh Burke with 90 to 96 mk vls. The sea ceptor is only a point defence missile system. Having said all that I have no doubt that they will be the best warship Canada has ever produced relative to the rest of the world. I think much would be gained by replacing the two aft 30mm with a single 40mm. I can’t see the weight penalty being substantial as it is only 2500kg versus the two 30mm
The ABs are what I would call a “true” AAW destroyer whereas the CSC Frigate would be classed as a “true” ASW Frigate. Changing out the 2 x Marlins 3omm guns either side of the CSC hangar for 2 x Bofors 40mm cannons “might” be possible, however where would you put 1 single Bofors 40 mm gun on the CSC Frigate? On top of the hangar? Again not feasible IMO.
The interesting thing in comparing the AB to the CSC is that the ships’ length, width and tonnage are virtually identical so I am curious what systems are driving the weight on the CSC whereas the AB can have 96 cells versus the 24 plus 6 of the CSC.
I would mount the single 40mm Bofors on top of the hangar. Lots of other ships have done it — the Type 31 is planning on doing exactly that. No need for two
Hello again Wayne. On your last reply, the Arleigh Burke Class gets all of its power from 4 x LM 2500 Gas Turbine engines generating 78,000 KWS with speeds of well over 30kts whereas the CSC frigate has only one MT 30 gas turbine engine generating a max of 36 to 39,000 KWS + Electric Motors generating speeds of approx 27+ kts. The ABs rely on those 4 x GTs for all of their propulsion power and have to refuel much more often compared to a CSC frigate which is why they try not to operate all 4 at once. The AB is longer, heavier and has a deeper draft compared to the CSC Frigate. The only place where the CSC Frigate is slightly superior is the Beam at 68 ft vice the AB at 66 ft. Yes you can put a 40mm Bofors on the CSC hangar, but why would you want to with 2 x 30mm Marlins on either side of the hangar? Every bit of weight we save on the CSC Frigate means better future proofing equipment for the CSC frigate down the road. Perhaps putting DEW weapons on the port/stbd waist areas midships?
Hi David I’m not seeing the differences that you are
length AB=155m CSC=151.4m,
Beam AB=20m CSC=20.75m
draft AB=9.3m CSC=8m
full load tonnage AB=9700 tonnes CSC=9400 tonnes
The 30mm’s would be gone, replaced by the 40mm
Hello Wayne. Although the differences between the AB AAW destroyer & CSC ASW Frigate are small as far as dimensions and “probable” full load weight are concerned, the ABs AAW characteristics make it a much different ship for what it is designed to do — AAW vs ASW (we just don’t know what the final “full-load” weight of the CSC Frigate will be). Also don’t forget that the AB’s crew size is larger as well, again because of what she is required to do (protect the airspace around the Carrier). As far as changing out the 30mm Marlins with 40mm Bofors, yes that could be done, but as I said before, when future-proofing the CSC Frigate, every ounce of weight saved is important. Besides, the CIADS Sea Ceptor missiles would be much more effective than Bofors 40mm guns anyway. In my opinion with respect to “future-proofing” the frigates, doubling the CIADS from 6 x 4 to 12 x 4 silos (24 to 48 missiles) would give the CSC Frigate a much better “bang-for-the-buck” than 40mm Bofors. Only my opinion though.
Hi David. Yes the AB and CSC are built for different purposes but the AB packs a whole lot into a very similar package. I don’t see where your weight concerns come from in subtracting 2 30mm and replacing them with one 40mm. And in my opinion we would get more bang from the buck with the 40 than the seaceptor. A greater range of target engagement at a much cheaper cost. Like I said before it’s a minor quibble about what in all probability is a system that will never be used
I guess then Wayne we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the Bofors 40mm vice CIADS then. Bofors 40mm is only a very short range “point defence” system as well even though the Sea Ceptor has a much longer “effective” range. Remember time and space is everything when a hypersonic missile is going for you. Whatever the reason for Canada choosing the Marlin 3omm guns, we have “made our bed” and now we will have to live with it. I personally believe the Marlin was chosen because it comes from the same company as the 5″ gun and was probably cheaper that way.
Hello,
It seems like time and space become irrelevant when considering the “hypersonic” speeds of missiles like Zirkon, which are reported to reach Mach 9 in their terminal phase. Being difficult to detect, highly maneuverable and following non-ballistic trajectories, how can these missiles be intercepted by a Mach 3 missile?
These platforms will never be usable against real “peer” adversaries in conventional armed conflict, because the physical inability to safely intercept these missiles makes them obsolete for that purpose. Hopefully we stay away from the nuclear threshold, which is guaranteed annihilation for everyone. So what is the next target “non-peer” threat?
Designing to defend our borders and waters against those “smaller” threats should be sufficient.
Hello Curious Civilian. Nice to have your opinion. Yes, Zircons are a difficult problem indeed even for the CSC Frigate and will need some sort of credible defence for it. If the CSC MK 41 VLS silos are all ExLS length, some sort of counter-US system will need to be “future-proofed for the CSC to deal with that threat. Another reason why in my opinion, Canada should have never cut the VLS cells down from 32 to 24. Those extra 8 cells could have been used for future hypersonic missiles for the CSC Frigates. Perhaps not for all of the Frigates, but the first 3 or 4 vessels anyway.
Hello again –
Thanks for the update on the CSC. Again, I despair at the prospect of only 24 VLS cells. Although CSC is not intended to be in the same league as Arleigh Burke, it is required to do anti-air warfare. Will a single vessel (out of a small task group) be performing this role, and if so, can it parry a sophisticated / saturation attack from the air while other TG ships are doing ASW? Doesn’t seem like the firepower is there. Or does the CONOP call for co-operative engagement by many CSCs against aircraft or ASMs? Inquiring minds want to know.
And if the ship is described as an ASW-platform-with-benefits, I wonder about the need for a gun to do shore bombardment.
Regarding Wayne’s comment about little offensive capability, the same criticism was recently leveled by a UK House of Commons Committee report which argued that RN surface combatants were becoming expensive ‘porcupines’ – lots of quills but not much bite-back.
(https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-ships-fleet-of-porcupines-says-defence-committee/) I realize that it’s a fine balance, but since Tomahawk is an aspirational capability (and with only 24 VLS I firmly believe that to be the case) we can take some comfort that the Naval Strike Missile Block 1A can give us some reasonable over-the-shore strike capability – assuming there is a scenario where this ASW vessel will sail close enough to an enemy shoreline to participate in a land attack. So…
…I would suggest giving over the VLS farm to SAM weapons and increasing the number of NSMs amidships, if such is possible. Besides, if adversary shipboard defences are improving over time, 8 anti-ship weapons won’t give you the same probability of hit as in the past. One or two salvoes and you’re done. Where’s the ‘fun’ in that?
But to give the porcupine analogy its due, has the RCN contemplated how to cost-effectively address the threat from (saturation) attacks by UAVs and/or USVs that may be used in the littorals? Are 2 x 30mm with air-burst ammo sufficient to deal with cheap and potentially numerous unmanned systems?
Hello Barnacle Bill! As I said to Curious Civilian, hypersonic missiles will be an increasing problem for the CSC in the future and in my opinion the 32 ExLS MK 41 VLS silos should be re-instated for the CSC frigate (fitted-for-but-not-with) for future hypersonic missiles to counter this new threat. Yes, CEC will be a requirement when we work with US units in the future. Giving the CSC another 2 x 4 NSM missile sets (as the US Constellation class will have), seems to be a reasonable option as well. I have always advocated for DEW laser systems for both the Port/Stb’d waist areas Mid-ships to deal with UAV/USV threats in the littoral regions (the UK Type 26 frigate will have a DEW system). We could also increase the number of Sea Ceptors from 24 to 48 VLS silos Mid-ships as well. This is all part of “future-proofing” the CSC frigate. Of course there may be trade-offs as far as increased weight and speed are concerned. My opinion anyway. Cheers!
I don’t think the 30mm is ideal for engaging aerial targets which is why I suggested replacing the two with one 40mm. The 30 is used on the IM-SHORAD but there’s a world of difference between a LAV and frigate. It’s been suggested that to take advantage of the programmable munitions a bigger round is desirable. The revived use of the 35mm in Ukraine could be indicative.
Careful Wayne. Are you sure you’re not advocating for more Sea Ceptor CIADS?
no for a host of reasons.
1. cost
2. weight
3. space
4. ability to engage multiple targets
5. volume of fire/reload
With LM’s earlier graphics, the CSC Frigate had SEA RAM fitted on the Port/Stb’d waist areas but it was decided to go with the Sea Ceptor VLS system abaft the funnel instead.
Leonardo’s Marlin 30mm weapon station can use air-burst munitions. Designed to be effective against drones.
https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18421316/MARLIN+30_new.pdf?t=1618842731728
The IM-SHORAD carries the XM-914 30mm chain gun from the Apache helicopter. A short-barreled weapon, it fires 30 x 113mm ammo and is unlikely to have the range of the long-barreled ATK 44 in the Marlin system firing 30 x 173mm stuff. So perhaps the comparison is moot.
Doubt the X-band radar will be SeaFire 500. Everything I have seen published on that radar is it is an S-band radar. The excellent article on the new French FDI frigates goes into some detail on this.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/inside-the-fdi-a-detailed-description-of-its-innovations
High Steve. If you take a look at the Thales Sea Fire 500 brochure, you will see it comes in both S and X Band or both. Cheers!
Thanks. I see an instrumented range of anywhere from 350-500kms, which is pretty far for X-band. It’s surprisingly difficult to find a brochure with this information in it, so if you have a reference, it would be most appreciated.
Hello Steve. We just don’t know for sure what ‘X’ Band Illumination radar MDA will produce but whatever it is will be an excellent AESA radar from them. Cheers!