Canada Navy Canada Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

I also thought to see if I could produce a list of warships either with, or planned to be fitted with the 127mm Vulcano gun. There is a lot of speculative and conflicting information on this, so it is difficult to be accurate. My list currently includes:

- the Canadian River Class destroyer
- the Italian Bergamini-class (FREMM class),
- the Italian Thaon di Revel class Offshore Patrol Vessels (PPA) (including the Indonesian KRI Brawijaya and KRI Prabu Siliwangi which were formerly the Italian Navy Marcantonio Colonna (P433) and the Italian Navy Ruggiero di Lauria (P435))
- the Egyptian FREMM multipurpose class frigates built by Italy (specifically Al-Galala and Bernees),
- the German F126-class frigates,
- the Spanish F110-class (Bonifaz class) frigates.

Warships I excluded were (and I may be incorrect) :

- the Netherlands De Zeven Provinciën-class Frigates (fitted post-refit replacing an older 127mm/54 with a OTO Melara 127mm/64 LW gun, which I read may be a different configuration from the vulcano), ... and i may have this wrong
.
- Dutch F125 uses an OTO Melara 127mm/64 LW gun, which I read may be a different configuration from the vulcano
.
- Algerian Erradii-class frigates (Meko A-200AN frigates), which I read uses the 127/64 LW gun, which may be a different configuration from the vulcano
.
- the German F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigates - which I read uses the 127/64 LW gun, which may be a different configuration from the vulcano.. I read it is compatible with some Vulcano guided and extended-range munitions (but I also read the F125 is not equipped with the full Vulcano fire control suite), and so despite having the 127/64 LW mount, the F125 is not confirmed to operate Vulcano GLR/BER munitions (at this time) due to limitations in fire control integration. Purportedly the fire control suite used is Thales Nederland’s STIR EO Mk 2, integrated via Atlas Elektronik’s combat system.
.
- the USA constellation class (FFG-62) which I read are likely planned to have the BAE Systems 5-inch (127mm) 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 naval gun
.
- the Japanese Mogami-class (FFM) which I read possibly will have the BAE Systems 5-inch (127mm) 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 naval gun

Again, I found it difficult to be precise here, as there is conflicting information on the Internet in this regard.

oldcpu said:

As noted in the quote, internet documents suggests the Canadian River Class is to have the Sea Sentor torpedo defense system.

I was curious as to which other warships in the world may have (or planned to procure) the Sea Sentor 'torpedo defense' system (I believe known as S2170 in the UK) and not to be confused with the S2150 nor confused with the Nixie torpedo defense system, nor some others.

I believe either the Sea Sentor (S2170) (or the detection only S2150) may be on the UK Type-45, and either the S2150 or the S2170 planned for the Type-23, Type-26, and Type-31 frigates. Dependent on the source, I obtain different answers here, and I don't have any definitive sources as to which class warship has which has either S2150 or S2170. My speculation is the planned Type-26 and current Type-45 are most likely to have S2170, but I could be wrong and I could have that backwards.

I believe other nations (in addition to the Uk warships and the Canadian River Class destroyer) whose new warships may procure the Sea Sentor include New Zealand's planned Anzac class, the Australian Hunter class (type-26 implementation) and the Netherlands planned 'Anti-submarine warfare frigates (ASWF) - although that may be closer to speculation for the Netherlands ASWF.

Some sources claim the Turkish MILGEM-class corvettes (Ada-class) may obtain such - but others contradict that and claim the Turkish warship may get Aselsan HZIR and/or ZOKA acoustic torpedo countermeasures instead. And some claim the Turkish İstif-class (TF-4500) may have the Ultra Sea Sentor installed. My guess is the Turkish MILGEM-class corvettes (Ada-class) may obtain the Sea Sentor, and the Turkish İstif-class (TF-4500) may get the Aselsan HZIR and/or ZOKA acoustic torpedo countermeasures instead. However speculation is .. well it is speculation.

It is difficult to obtain accurate information here, which is not surprising, given there is an obvious need for confidentiality and even secrecy given a warship's defensive systems.

Click to expand...

Milgem is uniquely complicated, sometimes first ship will have foreign systems that are indigenized on later ships

oldcpu said:

I also thought to see if I could produce a list of warships either with, or planned to be fitted with the 127mm Vulcano gun. There is a lot of speculative and conflicting information on this, so it is difficult to be accurate. My list currently includes:

- the Canadian River Class destroyer
- the Italian Bergamini-class (FREMM class),
- the Italian Thaon di Revel class Offshore Patrol Vessels (PPA) (including the Indonesian KRI Brawijaya and KRI Prabu Siliwangi which were formerly the Italian Navy Marcantonio Colonna (P433) and the Italian Navy Ruggiero di Lauria (P435))
- the Egyptian FREMM multipurpose class frigates built by Italy (specifically Al-Galala and Bernees),
- the German F126-class frigates,
- the Spanish F110-class (Bonifaz class) frigates.

Warships I excluded were (and I may be incorrect) :

- the Netherlands De Zeven Provinciën-class Frigates (fitted post-refit replacing an older 127mm/54 with a OTO Melara 127mm/64 LW gun, which I read may be a different configuration from the vulcano), ... and i may have this wrong
.
- Dutch F125 uses an OTO Melara 127mm/64 LW gun, which I read may be a different configuration from the vulcano
.
- Algerian Erradii-class frigates (Meko A-200AN frigates), which I read uses the 127/64 LW gun, which may be a different configuration from the vulcano
.
- the German F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigates - which I read uses the 127/64 LW gun, which may be a different configuration from the vulcano.. I read it is compatible with some Vulcano guided and extended-range munitions (but I also read the F125 is not equipped with the full Vulcano fire control suite), and so despite having the 127/64 LW mount, the F125 is not confirmed to operate Vulcano GLR/BER munitions (at this time) due to limitations in fire control integration. Purportedly the fire control suite used is Thales Nederland’s STIR EO Mk 2, integrated via Atlas Elektronik’s combat system.
.
- the USA constellation class (FFG-62) which I read are likely planned to have the BAE Systems 5-inch (127mm) 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 naval gun
.
- the Japanese Mogami-class (FFM) which I read possibly will have the BAE Systems 5-inch (127mm) 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 naval gun

Again, I found it difficult to be precise here, as there is conflicting information on the Internet in this regard.

Click to expand...

I spotted this 13 year old video, on the "generic" 127/64 LW gun (and not specific to the Vulcano) variant. Still, given I had not seen this video before, I thought it of interest.


In particular, reading of the 127/64 LW has improvements over older 127/54 compact was of interest to me, where I recall the 127/54 used to be on the 'pre-Trump' variant of Canada's DDH-280 class destroyer. I recall hearing rumours back then that the 127/54 was maintenance heavy, and possibly the 172/64 LW has addressed that. The video notes the 127/64 LW has improvements over older 127/54 compact include:
- more lightweight
- improved feeding system
- improved gun
- improved electronics
- improved electrical and hydraulic system

I suspect the aspects the video covers in regards to the 127/64 LW applies to both the non-vulcano variant and the vulcano variant of this gun. This is just my speculation, as I have no classified insight, but only common internet access to this topic.

Also, here is a more recent Youtube video noting the Leonardo 127mm Vulcano gun is planned for the German Navy's new F126 frigates, although IMHO this newer video offers no new information in comparison to the older 13-year old video (except saying a bit more about ammunition types and gun anticipated range and speculating (?) on a fit of the vulcano variant on the Royal Netherlands Navy's four De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates:


Frankly, I find it confusing to assess whether a 127/64 LW is a Vulcano variant, or is not a Vulcano variant.

The second youtube video i link mentions the De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates. My understanding is the De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates 127/54 gun was originally a refurbished version of the Canadian DDH-280 127/54 gun, and the Netherlands are now planning to replace that old 127/54 with the newer 127/64 gun. However i may not be accurate there.

Also, perhaps in my previous post on this, I simply should have referenced the wiki on this naval gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/64

oldcpu said:

As I noted previously, if I had to speculate (perhaps "hope" might be a better word), I would speculate that the River Class destroyer could get the L3Harris Mk 20 shipboard EOSS. Digital Military Aerospace has a couple of articles of interest, such as:

...

However, I have not read yet of the Mk20 EOSS ever having been interfaced with the Leonardo OTO 127 mm (5 in)/64 LW Vulcano naval gun nor interfaced with the Leonardo Lionfish 30 mm (1.2 in) autocannons. Hence it has me wondering (if my speculation correct) as to how well the L3 Harris supplied EOSS will be interfaced to the overall combat system in regards to support to the Leonardo supplied 127mm and Leonardo supplied 30mm.

Click to expand...

Having typed the above, other than the Mk20 EOSS, I do not believe any other L3 Harris EOSS has been certified to interface to Aegis. i do not believe the ruggedized L3 Harris MX-10 MS nor MX-15 MS are certified for interfacing to Aegis nor are they fully certified to milspec. Hence there would be additional work (or risk) and cost if they were procured for the River Class destroyer, if they are not to be stand alone systems.

Obviously cost will be a factor, and I do not know what the costs of such systems may be. I would speculate the MX-10 MS cost could be $300K to $800K/unit, and MX-15 MS cost could be $500K to $1.5M/unit and Mk-20 EOSS could cost $2M to $4M per unit. I speculate prices would be affected (discounted) by the size of the order.

As to what EOSS system is planned for the River Class Destroyer? I don't know. L3 Harris may also have a new not yet named EOSS (lets call it the Mk49 EOSS, for lack of a better term), but I suspect if there is such, it would cost even more more.

For now we just need to wait and see.

EDIT. One thing I note is documentation often refers to the River Class Destroyer EOSS being an "L3 Harris Wescam" EOSS. I believe.WESCAM is a specific brand/product line within L3Harris: ... where L3Harris Technologies is a large defense contractor, and WESCAM is a well-known subsidiary/brand within L3Harris. WESCAM primarily specializes in gyro-stabilized, multi-sensor EO/IR imaging systems, mostly known for their MX-Series (e.g., MX-10, MX-15, MX-20, MX-25). Nominally "WESCAM" does not include the Mk-20 ... so I am curious as to what that may mean in regards to any EOSS procurement.

oldcpu said:

Having typed the above, other than the Mk20 EOSS, I do not believe any other L3 Harris EOSS has been certified to interface to Aegis.

Click to expand...

i am thinking this may be a "moot" point.

I am very much "out of date" here. Surfing I learned that the Halifax-Class Modernization (HCM) program may have included a Shipboard Electro-Optical Surveillance System (SEOSS) from L3 Harris. Key features:
- High-resolution EO/IR cameras (day/night capability).
- Laser rangefinder.
- Stabilized platform (for ship motion compensation).
- Integrated with Halifax-class CMS 330 combat system.

So I now speculate the River Class Destroyer could come with the L3 Harris WESCAM Shipboard Electro-Optical Surveillance System (SEOSS) or an upgraded version of that.

Quite possibly with the CMS-330 system which I believe is also to be on the River Class Destroyer (in addition to Aegis) , that an interface to CMS-330 would be adequate for SEOSS.

So I am now thinking the same SEOSS (or an upgraded variant) of what is part of the Halifax-Class Modernization (HCM) program may be the plan for the River Class destroyer. [EDIT ; ... where my speculation is the SEOSS (on the Halifax class). could be an upgraded/modified/militarized version of the commercial MX-15 MS .. And hence the SEOSS (upgraded) for the River Class could be a militarized version of the MX-20 MS or MX-25 MS where verification by similarity to the MX-15 MS/Halifax class SEOSS variant could reduce verification/validation costs to a militarized version] ... Again there is a LOT of speculation here by myself.

I read that the Canadian River Class destroyer may procure the NA-30S fire control radar, to use with the Leonardo 127/64 vulcano gun. I also read that on some classes of warships, the NA-30S firecontrol can be used to control the Leonardo 76mm gun.

So out of curiousity I did a search on this Fire Control radar and this is the list I came up with of warship classes that may have the NA-30S firecontrol radar:

- Indonesia: KRI Brawijaya 320 (Italian PPA derived). Use with 76/62mm and 127/64mm.
- Indonesia: KRI Prabu Siliwangi 321 (Italian PPA derived). Use with 76/62mm and 127/64mm.
- Indonesia: Merah Putih class (FREMM based). Speculate may be chosen to use with 76/62mm.
- Italian: Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura (PPA). Use with 76/62mm and 127/64mm
- Italian: FREMM EVO Frigate. Planned for use with 76/62mm.
- Italian: Horizon-class destroyer (mid-life-upgrade). Planned for use with 76/62mm.
- Italian: Paolo Thaon di Revel-class. Use with 76/62mm and 127/64mm.
- Qatar: Al Zubarah-class corvette. Use with 76/62mm. Possibly also with 30mm.

Obviously there is a lot of speculation there.

here is a link to the Leonardo NA-30S brochure: https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18395518/NA30S_MK2_LQ_mm08444_.pdf

Unclassified internet sources (which I could have wrong), provide following information on this NA-30S fire control radar:
- Primary function : Naval gun fire control (76 mm, 127 mm guns including guided rounds)
- Radar type: Dual-band radar system (X-band (tracking) and Ka-band (high-accuracy close-in tracking)
- Electro-Optical Suite: Integrated EO/IR sensor (3-5 µm band) package with thermal imaging, TV camera, laser rangefinder
- Guided ammunition: supports Vulcano GLR/BER (for 127mm) and DART (for 76mm only)
- Tracking capabilities: Multi-target, simultaneous tracking of air and surface threats
- Control options: Local and remote operation via CMS

I don't know if all those functions (above) come with every NA-30S or if one can pick and chose some aspects.

Again, take the above with a grain of salt - it is what i came up with internet searches.

oldcpu said:

I spotted this 13 year old video, on the "generic" 127/64 LW gun (and not specific to the Vulcano) variant. Still, given I had not seen this video before, I thought it of interest.

In particular, reading of the 127/64 LW has improvements over older 127/54 compact was of interest to me, where I recall the 127/54 used to be on the 'pre-Trump' variant of Canada's DDH-280 class destroyer. I recall hearing rumours back then that the 127/54 was maintenance heavy, and possibly the 172/64 LW has addressed that. The video notes the 127/64 LW has improvements over older 127/54 compact include:
- more lightweight
- improved feeding system
- improved gun
- improved electronics
- improved electrical and hydraulic system

I suspect the aspects the video covers in regards to the 127/64 LW applies to both the non-vulcano variant and the vulcano variant of this gun. This is just my speculation, as I have no classified insight, but only common internet access to this topic.

Also, here is a more recent Youtube video noting the Leonardo 127mm Vulcano gun is planned for the German Navy's new F126 frigates, although IMHO this newer video offers no new information in comparison to the older 13-year old video (except saying a bit more about ammunition types and gun anticipated range and speculating (?) on a fit of the vulcano variant on the Royal Netherlands Navy's four De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates:

Frankly, I find it confusing to assess whether a 127/64 LW is a Vulcano variant, or is not a Vulcano variant.

The second youtube video i link mentions the De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates. My understanding is the De Zeven Provinciën-class LCF frigates 127/54 gun was originally a refurbished version of the Canadian DDH-280 127/54 gun, and the Netherlands are now planning to replace that old 127/54 with the newer 127/64 gun. However i may not be accurate there.

Also, perhaps in my previous post on this, I simply should have referenced the wiki on this naval gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/64

Click to expand...

Hello oldcpu. I have seen these videos before when investigating the LW 127/64 Vulcano gun for the CSC RCD fit. Looks like a good fit for our "new" RCDs! Cheers for this!

oldcpu said:

With regard to the "Sonobuoy Processing System (SPS), the defencehub page on the Canadian Surface Combatant notes:



A surf on the internet indicated this web page on the General Dynamics web site:

Sonobuoy Processor - General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada

Our Sonobuoy Processing system increases the tactical advantage against modern submerged threats with best-in-class range performance and acoustic intelligence exploitation.

gdmissionsystems.ca

That website refers to it as the UYS-505 software. The site notes their sonobuoy processing software

• - provides passive/acoustic processing for all common passive sonobuoy types, including NATO standard 99 sonobuoy RF channel allocation
• - has advanced processing algorithms to detect submerged targets sooner, and maintains precision tracking longer and can search larger areas
• - employs directional and spectral analysis to generate displays
• - 1 hour of display read historical data for each of 32 concurrently processed sonobuoys
• - something they call 'multistatic processing' to perform with ship sonars, helicopter dipping sonars which provide active sources
• - 'open' architecture approach for data transfer and easy integration

I could be wrong, but I do not believe many navies have such equipment in their warships - although I note the reference to integration to CMS/Aegis Combat System, which makes me suspect the US Navy may have something like this (or something similar). I suspect sonobuoy processing systems are more common on maritime patrol aircraft (and shipborne anti-submarine helicopters) and also something more advanced in shore based installations.

I think it a good thing to have this on this new River Class. - although its speculation as to whether the UYS-505 software is the software variant the Canadian Navy is planning to procure as part of the River Class destroyer.

Click to expand...

Further to this, I am still puzzling over the fact sheet for the River Class Destroyer where it refers to a "Sonobuoy Processing System - General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS)"

While I believe there are fixed wing and helicopter variants of the UYS-505 and UYS-506, I keep asking myself, are these also planned to be installed on a Canadian warship? And i tend to come up with the speculative answer "NO".

I believe the UYS-505 and UYS-506 (MIL-STD-196 designations ? ) which are possibly deployed on P-3C, P-8A, and maybe Arleigh Burke class destroyers, are coded to integrated with AN/SQQ-89 (?) and such computers, where instead in the case of the River Class (and also the Halifax class) such equipment would need to interface with the CMS-330. Hence a "GDMS-Canada-APS" could be different in various aspects.

Presumably in regards to multi-channel sonobuoys it supports DIFAR, DICASS, VLAD, RSS, LOFAR, FDS, Single Hydrophone Sonobuys, and passive signals from the towed array sonar, and maybe passive information from the hull-mounted sonar ? < this is speculation by me > .

There were October-2018 and November-2020 contracts provided to General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada in related areas for the Halifax Class frigates. I also read from 2021-to-2023 there was additional funding for "CSC combat system development" which might (speculation) include support for acoustic processing system.

I guess it is not surprising, details on such is not something easily found in unclassified press. It may be some time before we know the variant and designation of the Canadian River Class Destroyer's "sonobuoy processing system".
.

oldcpu said:

Further to this, I am still puzzling over the fact sheet for the River Class Destroyer where it refers to a "Sonobuoy Processing System - General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS)"

While I believe there are fixed wing and helicopter variants of the UYS-505 and UYS-506, I keep asking myself, are these also planned to be installed on a Canadian warship? And i tend to come up with the speculative answer "NO".

I believe the UYS-505 and UYS-506 (MIL-STD-196 designations ? ) which are possibly deployed on P-3C, P-8A, and maybe Arleigh Burke class destroyers, are coded to integrated with AN/SQQ-89 (?) and such computers, where instead in the case of the River Class (and also the Halifax class) such equipment would need to interface with the CMS-330. Hence a "GDMS-Canada-APS" could be different in various aspects.

Presumably in regards to multi-channel sonobuoys it supports DIFAR, DICASS, VLAD, RSS, LOFAR, FDS, Single Hydrophone Sonobuys, and passive signals from the towed array sonar, and maybe passive information from the hull-mounted sonar ? < this is speculation by me > .

There were October-2018 and November-2020 contracts provided to General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada in related areas for the Halifax Class frigates. I also read from 2021-to-2023 there was additional funding for "CSC combat system development" which might (speculation) include support for acoustic processing system.

I guess it is not surprising, details on such is not something easily found in unclassified press. It may be some time before we know the variant and designation of the Canadian River Class Destroyer's "sonobuoy processing system".
.

Click to expand...

Hello "oldcpu". I believe since GD is one of the partners with the Canadian RCD, the General Dynamics UYS 505 will be used and integrated into the CCS 330 system as per below:

Recent news are reporting (again) on MDAs contract for a Laser warning system.

According to Spaceq.ca

MDA said the contracts “are for the delivery and integration of sensor systems for the first three ships that improve situational awareness and protect the ships against laser and optical guided threats.”

Click to expand...

and Naval Technology notes:

"The sensor systems are being developed across various Canadian locations, including Richmond in British Columbia, Halifax in Nova Scotia, and Brampton in Ontario."

Click to expand...

and autoevolution notes:

"The company does not specifically say what these "next generation naval sensors" are, or what they are supposed to do, but we are told there will be two of them, and they'll be tasked with giving the sailors on board situational awareness, but also to protect them all against laser and optical guided threats."

Click to expand...

This puzzles me. This is old news !!

It reads to be consistent with what was announced previous (without the $60 million dollar price tag being mentioned) where MDA was noted to be the company to provide the River Class Destroyer's "Laser Warning and Countermeasures System"

One can find references on MDA's website back in 23-Feb-2021 of MDA being awarded an initial contract with an expected production value of more than CAD$60 million on the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project.

So as to why this is now hitting the news yet again, is not clear to me.

Going back in history to JED Online previously noted:

"MDA Space was in early 2019 contracted as EW suite integrator for the program. Under contract to Lockheed Martin Canada, the company was given responsibility for procuring best-value subsystems for each functional element and providing an advanced EW solution for installation onto each CSC ship."

Click to expand...

That JED Online article noted:

"MDA in February 2021 announced that it has been awarded an initial production contract for the laser warning and countermeasure system. The company has estimated potential revenues of around C$1.5 billion from 2020 to 2040 from the design and integration of the EW system."

Click to expand...

I note $60-million for 3 ships is $20-million per ship. Doing some math, if price identical for all 15 ships (which I don't believe) that is only $300 million for 15 ships (and I suspect it will be significantly less than $20-million per ship as my suspicion is the initial price carries a much higher % of develpment costs). So I wonder where MDA anticipate they will obtain the full C$1.5 billion from ? Or perhaps MDA's 2021 assessment of $1.5 billion Canadian$ was far far too optimistic.

Initial fact sheets had MDA providing a "Solid State AESA Taget Illuminator" but I believe that no longer the case.

Also, a bit off topic, and I can't recall if I posted before, that JED Online article also noted:

"The solution taken into the program’s Definition Phase 2 comprised the ELT Zeus radar-band electronic support measures (RESM) system, Lockheed Martin Canada’s Raven multiband onboard electronic attack (EA) system, and Safran’s NGDS trainable decoy launcher system. MDA’s own laser warner and countermeasures solution was also baselined.

However, it has now emerged that the EW suite is one of a number of elements in the River-class above-water combat system re-scoped so as to mitigate program cost and schedule risk, and engineer greater commonality with allies and other RCN platforms. Key to this is the decision to integrate the US Navy’s Aegis combat system as the core of the CSC combat system.

One consequence of this modified acquisition approach is that the original bespoke EW solution has been dropped from at least the first three ships. Instead, Lockheed Martin’s AN/SLQ-32(V)6 RESM system – introduced to the US Navy under SEWIP Block 2 and already integrated with Aegis – is to be acquired through Foreign military Sales (FMS).

In addition, the Raven onboard EA system and the NGDS decoy launcher have also been shelved from the program. Instead, the River-class ships will receive an offboard EA capability through the integration of the BAE Systems Nulka active missile decoy system (again supplied through FMS)."

Click to expand...

So it appears the EW kit is SLQ-32(V)6 radar detection system (RESM), Nulka (active missile decoy system), and (from different sources) SRD-506 (Strongbow) (communications intercept/SIGINT equipment).

I wonder when the next 'official' navy update on the combat systems will be provided ..

I thought i would speculate a bit on the River Class Destroyer, Aegis, and CEC/C2BMC , especially in light of some occasional press mention of NORAD and the USA talk of a Golden Dome.

While reading up on Aegis, and learning a bit about Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) which I understand the River Class Destroyer are planned to have, I stumbled across another term, entitled C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications), which only some (typically USN) Aegis implementations have.

Reading further I read that C2BMC System is a software package used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and combatant commands to support and integrate ballistic missile defense systems. C2BMC is responsible for integrating individual BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System) components to create a global, networked, and layered missile defense apparatus capable of identifying, tracking, and intercepting ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight.

Purportedly, C2BMC is part of the US Navy warship's Aegis implementation. It may or not be part of the Aegis implementation of some foreign warships < I simply don't know >

I read C2BMC in Aegis helps integrate data relayed from Space Based Sensors (via some TBC method), Ground Based Radars (presumably through a data linik), and Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD) Interceptors. I suspect this is getting into very sensitive national security areas (and likely areas that are highly classified). It has me wondering if the Canadian River class will have the appropriate C2BMC modules(?)/functionality in their Aegis implementation. I speculate if desired to fully integrate the River Class Aegis with NORAD (say during a period of high alert) that a C2BMC functionality would be desirable (dare I speculate perhaps essential if to optimally integrate with NORAD ?? ).

Recent political statements coming out of the US government suggest they are pondering a "Golden Dome" missile defense, where the 'door' was open for Canada to participate (albeit it would be incredibly expensive). Still, that also had me thinking an Aegis C2BMC / CEC capable warship could be a very small part of such a system.

I read C2BMC provides more than just data. It also helps commanders:
- track and classify threats
- assess threat trajectories (predicts impact points)
- optimizes engagements (recommends best interceptors)
- coordinates actions (to avoid interference/duplication between assets)

I have not read much in the press about this in regards to the River Class Destroyer procurement details, and i suspect this is a politically 'sensitive' (in addition to being classified) topic, and in addition to possibly (speculation by me) being under discussion, which may in part explain why so little is being stated.

oldcpu said:

I thought i would speculate a bit on the River Class Destroyer, Aegis, and CEC/C2BMC , especially in light of some occasional press mention of NORAD and the USA talk of a Golden Dome.

While reading up on Aegis, and learning a bit about Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) which I understand the River Class Destroyer are planned to have, I stumbled across another term, entitled C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications), which only some (typically USN) Aegis implementations have.

Reading further I read that C2BMC System is a software package used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and combatant commands to support and integrate ballistic missile defense systems. C2BMC is responsible for integrating individual BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System) components to create a global, networked, and layered missile defense apparatus capable of identifying, tracking, and intercepting ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight.

Purportedly, C2BMC is part of the US Navy warship's Aegis implementation. It may or not be part of the Aegis implementation of some foreign warships < I simply don't know >

I read C2BMC in Aegis helps integrate data relayed from Space Based Sensors (via some TBC method), Ground Based Radars (presumably through a data linik), and Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD) Interceptors. I suspect this is getting into very sensitive national security areas (and likely areas that are highly classified). It has me wondering if the Canadian River class will have the appropriate C2BMC modules(?)/functionality in their Aegis implementation. I speculate if desired to fully integrate the River Class Aegis with NORAD (say during a period of high alert) that a C2BMC functionality would be desirable (dare I speculate perhaps essential if to optimally integrate with NORAD ?? ).

Recent political statements coming out of the US government suggest they are pondering a "Golden Dome" missile defense, where the 'door' was open for Canada to participate (albeit it would be incredibly expensive). Still, that also had me thinking an Aegis C2BMC / CEC capable warship could be a very small part of such a system.

I read C2BMC provides more than just data. It also helps commanders:
- track and classify threats
- assess threat trajectories (predicts impact points)
- optimizes engagements (recommends best interceptors)
- coordinates actions (to avoid interference/duplication between assets)

I have not read much in the press about this in regards to the River Class Destroyer procurement details, and i suspect this is a politically 'sensitive' (in addition to being classified) topic, and in addition to possibly (speculation by me) being under discussion, which may in part explain why so little is being stated.

Click to expand...

Hello oldcpu. If (and only if) Canada comes to it's senses and finally decides to join the US with a BMD capability, Aegis C2BMC would and should certainly follow. Does the RCD program already have this software package in anticipation of having both a CEC & BMD capability as with most AB'S? We will probably never know as it would be strictly highly classified and on a "need-to-know" basis only. Interesting thought! Cheers!

I have been puzzling over some Aegis aspects and functionalities in regards to the River Class Destroyer, and so to lay the ground work for my future understanding, I researched a bit the evolution of Aegis. This is my summary and it pulls information from various unclassified sources and it could have major errors, so take it with a grain of salt. Lots of salt ... Further the baseline versions of Aegis (especially the earlier ones) on warships may have significantly changed from what my initial research found, so do not accept what is below as being up to date.

Having type those qualifications, with regard to Aegis Baseline variants

* Baseline-0 - original Aegis on USS Ticonderoga -1983. Used Link-11.

* Baseline-1 (CG 47-51) - still used SPY-1A radar and Mk26 launcher

* Baseline-2 (CG 52-58) - used Mk41 VLS, Tomahawak, upgraded ASW.

* Baseline-3 (CG 59-64) - used more advanced SPY-1B, SM-2 Block-II missile, new UYQ-21 computer consoles with enhanced ECCM capabilities. Ships with Baseline-3 became candidates for early basic Ballistic Missiel Defense (BMD) software upgrades.

* Baseline-4 (CGs-65-73) and (DDGs 51-67) - designed to accomodate both destroyers and cruisers

* Baseline-5 (DG 68-78) - included SPY-1D radar, support for SM-2 Block-IV-Missile, SLQ-32 ECM, and introduced use of Link-16. This may have been when standalone early versions of CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) started appearing, to interface with Aegis.

* Baseline-6 - a number of enhancements re: SPY-1D(V), introduction of RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), transition to UYK-70 Display Consoles, and early COTs transition, and hardware to support more integrated CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability). This all provided improved AAW, superior short-range defense (ESSM), and more COTs use.

* Baseline-7 - increased shift to open architecture (OA) software with more integration of COTS (Commercial-of-the-shelf hardware). This resulted in a integration of CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) into Aegis. Supported an improved SPY-1D radar variant, and an improved AN/SQQ-89(V)15 ASW capability. In addition to USN, South Korean Sejoing Class destroyers (Batch-1)

* Baseline-8 - enhancements in regards to COTs use, ASW, and other. Australia's Hobart class may have Baseline-8. In addition to USN, the Australian Hobaart class destroyers.

Baseline-9 - includes dedicated software and possibly hardware modules allowing Aegis to interface with the C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications) network. I believe it was the first Aegis version to fully integrate and leverage the BCN/C2BMC network for simultaneous Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) operations. It allows both ballistic missile defense and air defense to be conducted simultaneous, while earlier baseline versions may not have allowed such to be done simultaneously as easily. Included Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) 5.0/5.1 (to engage ballistic missiles in both the exo-atmosphere (upper atmosphere) and endo-atmosphere (lower atmosphere) using SM-3 and SM-6 missiles). Also many other improvments, including a land version fo Aegis BMD. Initial implementation of Common Source Library (CSL) software architecture. The CSL makes it more practical for potential implementation with AN/SPY-7 and also allows for software to be upgraded while a warship is deployed. In addition to USN, the Japanese Atago-class and Maya-class destroyers (Aegis J7), Japanese ASEV warships (Aegis J7B with SPY-7), Spanish Alvar de Bazan class (F-100)(Baseline 9.C/9.2x), South Korean "Sejong-the-Great" Class destroyers (batch-II).

Baseline-10 - includes AN/SPY-6(V)1 (which meant vastly increased sensitivity, range, target discrimination, anti-clutter/ECM resistance). Improved simultaneous air defence and ballistic missile capability. Improved capability against anti-ship missile threats and against larger sized air raids (ie more targets). Baseline-10 may incororate some AI/Machine Learning functionality (to help in clutter/noise removal, target classification, improve operator reaction time, propose superior resource allocation, provide some preventative maintenance predictions). Baseline-10 has a more mature Common Source Library (CSL) implementation which may also include virtualization under which various software can run in different environments. In addition to USN, the Canadian River Class (with AN/SPY-7), and the Spanish Bonfiaz class F-110 frigates (with AN/SPY-7) and the German F-127 warships (with AN/SPY-6).

I conducted the above research - so to better understand the implications for Canada in regards to the Canadian River Class destroyer program. ... Another post is to follow shortly by me pondering a bit more .

I puzzled a bit over whether the River Class destroyers might come with C2BMC functionality, and I basically came to the conclusion that any decision could be the result of politics, initial costs, and lifetime maintenance costs. But I came to no conclusions as to whether C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications) functionality would be included.

In pondering this, aspects I considered were:

* AN/SPY-6: The AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), adopted by the U.S. Navy for its Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, is supplied by Raytheon (an RTX business). Its development and integration into the Aegis Combat System are primarily funded by the U.S. Navy and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

* Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC): CEC, used by the U.S. Navy and planned for procurement by Canada for its River-class destroyers, is supplied by Raytheon Technologies (RTX).

* Aegis Combat System: The Aegis Combat System, including the Baseline 10 (ACB 20) capabilities for the U.S. Navy and the customized variants for international partners like Canada's River-class destroyers, is developed and managed by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin serves as the Combat System Engineering Agent (CSEA) for Aegis, a role inherited through its acquisition of RCA's Missile and Surface Radar division, the original developer of Aegis.

* AN/SPY-7: The AN/SPY-7 radar, which Canada plans to procure for its River-class destroyers, is developed and supplied by Lockheed Martin. The integration of AN/SPY-7 into the specific Aegis variants for international programs is funded by the respective procuring nations, including Spain, Canada, and notably, Japan (who provided significant early funding).

* C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications), which is being implemeted in different Aegis variants in the US Navy (however there are no official indications that Canada may procure such) comes from Lockheed Martin who lead the National Team for the development of C2BMC.

Further to the above, I read, and I do not know if accurate, that CEC and C2BMC likely use different data networks and hence different RF frequencies for the data exchange. CEC nominally uses secure close to line of sight S-band or X-band connectivity, while C2BMC may use Satcom (ie X-band or Ka/Ku band).

I also understand information from an Aegis CEC equipped ship may feed information into the C2BMC network.

Hence I asked myself if the USN Aegis Baseline-10 nominally comes in the USN with CEC and C2BMC integrated would it cost much more for the Canadian Aegis Baseline 10 to include CEC and C2BMC?

If, say C2BMC were not included with the Canadian River class, would that reduce the Aegis Baseline-10 procurement cost ? I suspect possibly YES - reduce the cost some, simply from Lockheed Martin wanting money for their work to lead the National Team for the development of C2BMC (and not wanting to give away software and system design for free). And obviously , there would be government-to-government approvals needed for Canada to participate in C2BMC. I speculate (big time) and wonder if C2BMC might end up being an integral part of the under consideration US 'Golden Dome'.

I further wonder, thou, if Canada has a slightly different 'Aegis Baseline-10' from the US Navy, with C2BMC disabled in the Canadian sub-variant, if that might potentially increase the downstream software code maintenance costs as years go by, with the Canadian Aegis having different software modules than the USN AEGIS. Possibly even different sub-variant from the Japanese and Spanish AN/SPY-7 Aegis sub-variants (this is pure speculation by me). If Canada has a different baseline 'sub-variant', then the Canadian Aegis may need more additional testing than it would otherwise, if its configuration was closer to that of the USN. That would cost money. Again, speculation.

And then maybe having no 'C2BMC' it might not increase downstream software maintenance costs at all ... . I don't know.

Obviously there will be differences internal to the Aegis Baseline sub-variants, with Canada/Spain/Japan going with AN/SPY-7 and the USN going with AN/SPY-6.

Still, I wonder if the Canadian Navy can make a legitimate case that they should have C2BMC with their Aegis Baseline-10 variant so to ensure reduced downstream maintenance costs?

I believe such logic might be compatible with Germany's logic and their recent decision to go with AN/SPY-6 (instead of AN/SPY-7) for their new warships, as Germany wants closer compatibility with US Navy, likely in my opinion, to help reduce future maintenance costs in Aegis software, downstream. Again, my speculation.

On this C2BMC (Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications) topic, it had me thinking about Communications for the River Class Destroyer. I note C2BMC requires SATCOM for the Aegis equipped warship to participate in C2BMC. I read back in May last year that L3Harris are to provide communications for the River Class Destroyer.

I wonder how 'cast in stone' the design is for the L3Harris supplied communications system for the River Class Destroyer? My assumption is that system will include Satellite Communications (SATCOM).

I also note the US Military (and i speculate that the US Navy will go along with such) is paying Space-X to develop a 'Starshield' SATCOM system in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to basically provide a more militarized (more robust ? ) variant of STARLINK. The existing Space-X commercial STARLINK has been combat proven in the Ukraine war (albeit not without some issues), and this has me speculating that the US Navy is likely watching the development of Starshield and possibly interested in procuring if and when Starshield is deployed and goes operational. I speculate that Starshield could go operational long before the first River Class Destroyer is operational, so I wonder if L3Harris may be offering the Canadian Military an option to add Starshield compatibility into the L3Harris supplied communications system, assuming the Canadian Government can come to an agreement with the US Government to also use such a system.

If this speculation were to be the case (where speculation is the operative word) this could be one step to ensuring the door is left open for Canadian potential participation in C2BMC.

Hello oldcpu. Some very interesting and thought-provoking questions on the RCD & CDN Baseline 10 variant along with L3 Harris & Star Shield SATCOMS. All I know for sure is that CEC will be included in the RCD program & L3 Harris will supply, and is the sole-sourced contractor for all RCD communication equipment hardware & software (including all UHF; HF; & all SATCOM secure systems-including all Tactical Data Link and Global System Comms). As far as I know, Canada has not closed the door on a BMD or C2BMC capability and could very well be part of the equation. There are a lot of questions concerning Aegis Baseline & Communications setup as a whole, that we are not, and will not be privy to because of security & secrecy requirements for the RCDs. We will just have to "wait-and-see" what each River Class Destroyer will have with the new PM, Mark Carney and the Government Of Canada over the next few months/years.

When searching for information on Aegis AN/SPY-7 implementations, I stumbled across an old article on the planned Japanese AN/SPY-7 procurement, where with my updated knowledge I am reconsidering it in a 'new light'.

It provides some of the history of the tribulations of the Japanese AN/SPY-7 procurement, as Japan debated its approach to air defense and ballistic missile defense, while at the same time trying to move forward with equipment procurement.

Of interest to me were these extracts from the article (although given this is likely a translation from Japanese language, the translation is clearly a bit taking in some places):

The SPY-7 radar was also not used in the US Navy, which raised the future interoperability issue, but Lockheed Martin has dismissed this claim. However, Japan had to pay additional costs for the integration cost of combining the SPY-7 radar and the Aegis BMD combat system, and the AGIS system equipped with the Aegis system
...
It was also proposed to cancel the purchase of SPY-7, which is not used by the US Navy and convert it to SPY-6 , to build an Aegis destroyer worth the All -Burk Flight III. However, it has been defeated by the defense and the marine defense that advocates the SPY-7 performance and low price compared to the SPY-6.
...
The suspiciousness of performing a ballistic ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission will be the first case of operating the SPY-7 radar. The detection of SPY-7 (V) 1 , a reduced derivative of LRDR (long- distance identification radar) of Lockheed Martin , which started operating in Alaska in 2022 , is considered at least three times the AN/SPY-1 D (V) , and AN/SPY-6 (V) 1 AMDR adopted by the US Navy. It also claims that performance is also surpassed. Especially the power consumption rate is lower, the design of the radar is optimized for continuous operation, and it is suitable for long-term missions such as missile defense because of the advantages that can be continuously operated during maintenance, and unlike SPY-6, it has a precise digital beam multiple medium-sided control function that has the ability to identify real warheads and fake warheads very accurately.

Thanks to this powerful performance, ships equipped with the Aegis system will have the ability to immediately detect and block lofted trajectory fire that extends to an altitude of several thousand kilometers, as recently demonstrated by North Korea's ICBM .

Lockheed Martin is also promoting the performance of the Japanese SPY-7 and the combat system, which proved to have proved satellite tracking and virtual interceptor ability, and will also be equipped with the ability to engage in ultra-high high- altitude space targets

Click to expand...

Some of the references in that article are of interest, such as this one from Sep-2021 entitled "SPY-7 Hybird Defense program with Japan completes additional capability test", where that article notes the Japanese Aegis will utilize the latest capabilities and functionality of both Aegis Baseline 9 and Baseline-10:

"Aegis Baseline J7.B adds the advanced solid-state SPY-7 radar to the mature J7 baseline, and will utilize the latest capabilities and functionality of both Aegis Baseline 9 and Aegis Baseline 10 available in the Aegis Common Source Library."

Click to expand...

and further a reference that notes:

"[6] Ships that carry the SPY-7 radar include the Canadian River-class destroyer and the Spanish Bonifas-class frigate . However, both ships carry a smaller version of the radar, and their combat systems do not take BMD into account."

Click to expand...

There is no supporting link for the statement that the combat systems of the Canadian River-class destroyer and the Spanish Bonifas-class frigate do n0t take BMD into account. I do note also the statement that both ships (Canadian and Spanish) carry a smaller version of the radar.

Some key take aways for me in this is

• Japan possibly paid for most (all ?? ) of the integration costs of the SPY-7 into Aegis
• sources in Japan believe the Japanese SPY-7 is less expensive than the SPY-6
• sources in Japan believe the Japanese SPY-7 performance surpasses that of the SPY-6 (although I speculate this may be because of the larger Japanese SPY-7 implementation ? ).
• The article goes on to claim the power consumption rate of the SPY-7 is lower than that of the SPY-6 and the design of the radar is optimized for continuous operation. The article claims the SPY-7 is suitable for long-term missions such as missile defense because of the advantages that can be continuously operated during maintenance, and unlike SPY-6, it has a precise digital beam multiple medium-sided control function that has the ability to identify real warheads and fake warheads very accurately.

All interesting, especially given Germany has recently chosen the AN/SPY-6 over the AN/SPY-7 for their upcoming F127-class frigates in a 30-May-2025 announcement.

Having typed that, from what I could read and what i speculate is that Germany considers the performance between the two radars not significantly different, and that commonality with the AN/SPY-6 was considered more important for Germany, where presumably by Germany having the same radar as the USN, subsequent potential future upgrades and future Aegis upgrades to work with the SPY-6 radar, would be less expensive for Germany, with USN covering the costs for the USN fleet that has adopted SPY-6 (and hence Germany would 'tag along on the USN coat tails).

While in the case of the SPY-7, it reads to me that Japan has paid for the lion's share (all ? ) of the costs for integrating the SPY-7 into Aegis.

Further, it suggests to me that it will likely be Japan, Canada and Spain who jointly will pay for any future Aegis upgrades specific to the SPY-7 radar. So by Germany going with the SPY-6, the German navy may save on potential future Aegis SPY-6 specific upgrades < which is pure speculation by myself >

Given a prime rational for the Japanese SPY-7 procurement is Ballistic Missile Defense, it would not surprise me if in addition to CEC, that they also implement C2BMC functionality.

One of the noted articles claims the Spanish and Canadian Aegis SPY-7 implementations will not incorporate Ballistic Missile defense aspects, which I speculate means C2BMC functionality.

However although the implementation of C2BMC is far less clear for the River Class, possibly the recent USA consideration of a 'Golden Dome' missile shield over the USA, with an offer for Canada to participate, might mean Canada will consider (or reconsider ?? ) implementing C2BMC functionality in the River Class Destroyer. The Canadian Prime Minister has indicated an increase in the Canadian defence budget significantly above 2% GDP (where currently Canada is well below 2%) and perhaps that might make a decision to provide C2BMC functionality more salable.