Canada Navy Canada Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

[Ted Barnes]

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Very interesting technology Ted. Will this 165 meter Shiflift drydock be able to lift both the Protecteur JSS and CSC River class; will it be built on the Halifax side of ISL and how long will the build process be from Bardex? It seems to be about 25-30 feet shorter for the JSS so, maybe not for that class.

 

[Ted Barnes]

Got invited to a AEGIS briefing in Halifax, it appears that junior operators will be sent on OUTCAN to serve aboard USN ships to gain the experience they need which makes sense.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Got invited to a AEGIS briefing in Halifax, it appears that junior operators will be sent on OUTCAN to serve aboard USN ships to gain the experience they need which makes sense.

That would not be a bad thing for the junior operators to get the experience on Aegis ABs. I would also expect that the more Senior Operators along with SWCs/ASWC/ OPSOs/ORSs/CPO2s/PO1s as well be going down for more intensive ashore AEGIS training and possible some sea time on US AEGIS ships as well?

 

[Ted Barnes]

McNally Construction's clamshell bucket dredge and barge at work August 19, 2024, Halifax Shipyard in preparation of the River Class destroyer construction. The depth of water needs to be increased to accommodate the draught of the new ships once launched.

Picture courtesy of Tom Goodyear

 

[oldcpu]

I read this thread with interest, and I hope the best for the Canadian navy in its procurement of this new class destroyer, which many of us believe is long over due, and hence we are happy to read about such finally.

As for the defencehub recent post post in this thread with the infographic and updated details, in regards to the Electronic Warfare kit, there is no mention of the communications intercept (SIGINT) fit , where other unclassified source notes this could be the "Project Strongbow" AN-SRD-506. While difficult to be certain, the most current Canadian Department of defence info graphic sketch for the River Class Destroyer does suggest the antenna of such equipment, and hence this could be the planned SIGINT fit.

Further the defencehub article, while listing the SEWIP Block-2 (SLQ-32 variant) as the ESM, and the Nulka system as a missile decoy system, it also lists the Raven ECM as being fitted on the River Class with an FMS procurement path and Aegis Integration path. I have not read any unclassified sources claiming Raven being interfaced to Aegis in the past. If one looks at the info graphic sketch, the antenna for the Raven, which could be observed in earlier speculative sketches of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), are not observable in the most recent Canadian Department of Defence sketches. One could speculate that means (1) such Raven ECM antenna simply was not included in the sketch, or (2) the Raven ECM antenna has changed for this (and possibly other?) classes of warships, or (3) Raven ECM is not included as part of the River Class destroyer procurement, or (4) I have a misunderstanding as to the Raven antenna appearance.

My hope is that the Canadian Navy, in addition to the Nulka active decoy system, does procure an additional effective active ECM equipment for this class of warship (such as Raven or an active SLQ-32 variant (ie w/Sidekick or other?)).

 

[oldcpu]

Further the defencehub article, while listing the SEWIP Block-2 (SLQ-32 variant) as the ESM, and the Nulka system as a missile decoy system, it also lists the Raven ECM as being fitted on the River Class with an FMS procurement path and Aegis Integration path. I have not read any unclassified sources claiming Raven being interfaced to Aegis in the past. If one looks at the info graphic sketch, the antenna for the Raven, which could be observed in earlier speculative sketches of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), are not observable in the most recent Canadian Department of Defence sketches. One could speculate that means (1) such Raven ECM antenna simply was not included in the sketch, or (2) the Raven ECM antenna has changed for this (and possibly other?) classes of warships, or (3) Raven ECM is not included as part of the River Class destroyer procurement, or (4) I have a misunderstanding as to the Raven antenna appearance.

Further to this, I note that the earlier speculative sketches of the Canadian Surface Combatant, illustrated antenna on the mast for what appeared to match the RAMSES ECM where according to Lockheed Martin advertising brochures, the RAVEN is an update of RAMSES. I just noticed earlier today, in this thread, in reference to the Canadian Surface Combatant (which also noted something similar on another forum/web site going back to summer-2022) that MDA were purportedly optimizing the antenna for RAVEN and were integrating the entire Canadian Surface Combatant EW suite together. Obviously summer 2022 is two years before the summer-2024 announcement (and latest sketch) but it does suggest (1) the RAVEN ECM antenna may have changed from that of RAMSES , and (2) I could have a misunderstanding as to the Raven antenna appearance. That is all pure speculation by me.

 

[oldcpu]

I tried via google searches (unsuccessfully thus far) to determine which of the L3Harris WESCAM Electro-optical and infrared systems is planned for the River Class Destroyer. I note a WESCAM MX10MS was sold to Thailand navy for Krabi offshore vessels (I think about 10 years ago). There is also the MX15MS (which is about 3x the weight of the MX10MS). And perhaps there is a different more recently developed (or under development? ) L3Harris WESCAM device planned to be fitted?

 

[oldcpu]

I tried via google searches (unsuccessfully thus far) to determine which of the L3Harris WESCAM Electro-optical and infrared systems is planned for the River Class Destroyer. I note a WESCAM MX10MS was sold to Thailand navy for Krabi offshore vessels (I think about 10 years ago). There is also the MX15MS (which is about 3x the weight of the MX10MS). And perhaps there is a different more recently developed (or under development? ) L3Harris WESCAM device planned to be fitted?

Possibly relevant, and possibly not, I note that L3 Harris are developing a 'next-generation' multi-functional "Shipboard Panoramic Electro-Optical/Infrared" (SPEIR) system for the US Navy surface ships, to passively detect, track and identify above water threats, and 'cue' self-defense systems.

I believe in April-2022 L3 Harris was awarded a $205.9 million contract by Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to perform the engineering and manufacturing for the SPEIR program. Options for low rate initial production (for the US navy) could, if exercised, bring the project total value up to $593 million.

The article states up to 21 SPEIR systems which strikes me as something possibly a bit too pricey for the Canadian navy (given the $539 million total price) ? Purportedly BAE Systems, as a partner to L3 Harris is involved, and in addition, Lockheed Martin is bringing combat system interface experience to ease integration into existing US Navy ship systems.

I wonder if a similar (identical ? ) SPEIR (or scaled down version) is being considered for the Canadian navy instead of the MX15MS or MX10MS? Cost is likely a major consideration, and I suspect the cost the US Navy is purportedly paying for the SPEIR system would be too high for the Canadian navy for the River Class - but maybe there could be a scaled down variant (or technology used to upgrade an cheaper priced existing L3 Harris system) that Lockheed Martin could be considering here for the River Class destroyer.

At the moment, I only have speculation.

 

[oldcpu]

I tried via google searches (unsuccessfully thus far) to determine which of the L3Harris WESCAM Electro-optical and infrared systems is planned for the River Class Destroyer. I note a WESCAM MX10MS was sold to Thailand navy for Krabi offshore vessels (I think about 10 years ago). There is also the MX15MS (which is about 3x the weight of the MX10MS). And perhaps there is a different more recently developed (or under development? ) L3Harris WESCAM device planned to be fitted?

Further to this ... I note on the L3 Harris web page, while they note the WESCAM MX-20 are used on warships, it tends to be more for smaller fast attack craft. I speculate that also the case for the MX10MS and MX15MS.

The L3 Harris web page goes on to note:

"Additionally, the company's MK20 and MK46 electro-optical (EO) sighting systems are the standard EO narrow field-of-view system for capital ships worldwide. L3Harris provides unmatched imaging from our photonic masts in support of U.S. and Allied Nations. The company leverages its strengths of inherent reliability at the device, component and system level, and coordinates and collaborates throughout the corporation to ensure its products leverage L3Harris' collective knowledge on maritime environments."

I believe in 2023, the US Navy awarded L3 Harris a contract for engineering and logistics support for the MK 46 Optical Sight System (OSS) and the MK 20 Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS). So my updated speculation is this could also be what is being proposed for the River Class destroyer.

I also read in a December 2022 article in Military Aerospace.com that the Mk 20 EOSS purported is utilized with the 5" (127mm) guns aboard the USNavy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the Ticoneroga class destroyers, and Coast Guard Offsore Patrol cutter. My understanding is the MK 20 EOSS has technology improvements over the MK-46 OSS.

L3 Harris advertising brochure on Mk20: https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/2024-03/l3harris-sell-sheet_mk20.pdf

So possibly, if not going for an expensive SPEIR approach, something closer to the MK-20 EOSS is under consideration for the River Class Destroyer. ... Once again, this is all my speculation.

 

[oldcpu]

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

22. Sonobouy Processing System (SPS) from General Dynamics with expendable Acoustic Countermeasures; To be integrated into the CMS/Aegis Combat System.

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.

 

[oldcpu]

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

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.

Some additional information on the General Dynamics 'sonobuoy processing' which is having me lean more and more to speculating that a version of the UYS-505 processor/software could be part of the procurement for the River Class Destroyer.

I note that the UK website for General Dynamics has a "Shipborne Sonobuoy Processing" web-page, with an embedded youtube video, that presumably is intended to provide some marketing of the General Dynamics Sonobuoy processing system:

Shipborne Sonobuoy Processing - General Dynamics UK

Maximise the detection of modern submerged threats with best-in-class Active and Passive Sonobuoy Processing System for any platform. Our Sonobuoy Acoustics Processor systems enable data distribution and processing with crewed and autonomous […]

generaldynamics.uk.com

From what I can see, it depicts an air drone being used to relay active sonobuoy signals back to the "mothership" (ie to the frigate/destroyer with the sonobuoy processing system). It does not display much, from what I could see, in terms of the sonobuoys passive detection and signal processing aspects. I believe the passive detection is a VERY big part of a sonobuoy processing system, but due to the classified nature of such, obtaining images of the passive display in action are more difficult to find.

The UK website provides a link to the UYS-506, which is a physical piece of kit.

UYS-506 on UK General Dynamics datasheet:

https://generaldynamics.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Sonobuoy_DS_071923.pdf

That had me curious, and I followed up to note on the Canadian General Dynamics webpage, a datasheet for the "VENON 3U" (VPX Integrated Processor for Sonobuoys) also called the UYS-505 "VENOM 3U".

https://gdmissionsystems.ca/-/media/GDMS-Canada/Underwater-Warfare/Sonobuoy-Processing/PDF/GDMS_Canada_VENOM-3U-UYS-505.ashx

That makes me suspect the previous General Dynamics Canada page I read on the UYS-505 was not just for software, but also for the hardware:

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

The USA page for General Dynamics also has a multi-page brochure on sonobuoys and associated products, where what the brochure refers to as "General Dynamics latest Sonobuoy Processing Software" which is described on one page in the brochure. In this case the software is also referred to as " UYS-505 'VENOM 3U' " .

Similar (but not identical) articles on different defence sites refer to the UYS-505 as being developed by the Canadian General Dynamics branch.

I have not taken the time to try and compare the datasheet on the UYS-506 (from the UK General Dynamics website) to the "UYS-505 VENOM 3U" on the USA and Canadian General dynamics websites.

Also on this topic, I am wondering if procurement of a smaller 'data relay drone' for sonobuoys signals may be an item that is under consideration by the Canadian navy, to go with the River Class destroyer.

I note there is an "old" "General Atomics" article (from January-2021) that notes testing with an air-drone to relay sonobuoy signals back to a ship that was using the UYS-505 sonobuoy processing software. Further a slightly newer "General Atomics" article (from March-2024) of GA-ASI Tests of a "Sonobuoy Dispensing System" with an MQ-9B Sea Guardian air-drone in the US Navy's W-291 test range in southern California. This testing was also reported in a defense.info webpage article. The MQ-9B Sea Guardian airdrone is, I believe, under development, but I suspect it is rather large and it can only be carrier launched. Hence if I am correct, then Canada would need to rely on helicopter drops/launch of sonobuoys for the River Class destroyer - but possibly after sonobuoys deployed, an air-drone could be used for data relay ??

Again - the above is PURE speculation from different news and defence advertising websites. This could be totally wrong. I suspect it could be years before we learn the actual implementation from unclassified sources.

 

[oldcpu]

The June-2024 infographic on the River class destroyer notes it is planned to have a "USN Cooperative Engagement Capability" (CEC), which I assume means a CEC compatible with that of the US Navy - should the US Navy agree to link up.

I read elsewhere that the CEC is noted to be a "real-time, sensor-netting system, that enables high-quality situational awareness and integrated fire control capability".

I found that as clear as mud, without details, without examples. I note an internet article on this:

CEC - Cooperative Engagement Capability

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a real-time sensor netting system that enables high quality situational awareness and integrated fire control capability.

www.navy.mil

That article refers to the US Navy CEC, and notes that there are CEC variants in:
- US Navy ships (which other articles note in Aegis cruisers, destroyers, amphibious ships, and aircraft carriers)
- US Navy E2 aircraft (ie E2C and E2B Hawkeye (early warning) aircraft)
- US Marine Core CTN (which proves CEC functionality to a HMMWV (High Mobility Multi-purpose wheeled vehicle)

From what I speculate, this allows the sharing between ships and aircraft of sensor and selected engagment data (ie surveillance of air and sea information, that presumably includes detection and tracking of surface ships, aircraft, submarines, missiles, and also ESM intercepts (ie laser(?), radar and communications intercept). Since the description talks of "integrated fire control" I assume that means, for example, warship-A could fire a missile and warship-B take over control of the missile such that it hits a target being better tracked by warship-B. The wiki on CEC supports that speculation.

Some information from that article:

CEC is a system of hardware and software that allows the sharing of radar and Identification, Friend or Foe sensor data on air targets amongst CEC equipped units.

CEC's two major system functions consist of a Cooperative Engagement Processor (CEP) for sensor networking and a Data Distribution System (DDS) for real-time communications amongst cooperating units (CU).

Sensor data from individual units are transmitted to other units in the network via the real time high quality, anti-jam capable line of sight, DDS.

Each CEC equipped unit uses identical sensor data processing algorithms resident in its CEP, resulting in each unit having the same display of air tracks.

CEC gives an individual ship the added capability to launch anti-air weapons at threat aircraft or missiles within its engagement envelope based on remote sensor data provided by the CEC sensor network.

The CEC system makes it possible for multiple surface ships, aircraft and USMC land units to form an air defense network by sharing radar target measurements in real-time.

To me this reads to be a significant improvement over the old stand-alone Link-11 and Link-22. A wiki on the CEC notes that France, India, and Japan have their own CEC. It would make sense to me thou, that Canada would procure a CEC that is compatible with that of the US Navy (assuming the US Navy would agree to such and agree to link up when operating as part of the same naval coalition).

 

[Nilgiri]

but possibly after sonobuoys deployed, an air-drone could be used for data relay ??

Yes I remember this coming up somewhere earlier. This would be a force multiplier for the heavy resources we are putting into these ships. It will definitely come about IMO.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Yes I remember this coming up somewhere earlier. This would be a force multiplier for the heavy resources we are putting into these ships. It will definitely come about IMO.

Hello Nigiri. oldcpu seems to know his CEC capability. Yes, I believe that's exactly why Canada procured the CEC capability to be compatible during USN Ops for the CSC Type 26 River Class Destroyer during Air; Surface and Sub-Surface threat scenarios. This would also benefit Canada if we did decide to acquire the USN Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) and a Hypersonic Missile capability in the future.

 

[oldcpu]

Torpedo Defence System for the River Class: Sea Sensor & Expendable Acoustic Countermeasures. Sea Spider ???

Note the Canadian government info graphic on the River Class Destroyer lists the "Towed Torpedo Countermeasures - Ultra Electronics SEA SENTOR S21700" and it does not state the Atlas Elektronik "Sea Spider" which some earlier articles that speculated on the Canadian Surface Combatant suggested (more on that in the second half of this post).

The SEA SENTOR

The SEA SENTOR is, from what I can read, something different in terms of what it contributes to Torpedo Defence.

http://www.sltco.co.kr/data/goodsImages/ADD_GOODS3_1434363350.pdf

According to the Ultra Electronics sales brochure, the Torpedo Defence System is integrated into a single tow cable that is part of the overall towed elements in a Sonar Suite, which also includes a Horizontal Projector Array (HPA), a Towed Low Frequency Source (TLFS) and Passive Receive Arrays (which can include left/right bearing resolution).

The brochure claims both the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy have purchased the Ultra Integrated Sonar Suite (although it does not state which, if not all, modules of the suite those two navies procured). The brochure claims the Ultra Electronics S2170 surface ship torpedo defence system entered into service with the Royal Navy in year 2005.


The brochure does note that the VDS and towed array were initially developed for the Canadian and Dutch navies, followed by demonstration at sea by the Canadian research organisation, DRDC. The brochure claims the 'optional Towed Low Frequency Source (TFLS) is an adaptation of proven sonobuoy technology, and that the signal processing software for the TLFS is common with the Horizontal Projector Array (HPA).

In terms of the Torpedo Defence System the brochure states:

Torpedo Defence System

A combined expendable and towed system, integrated in the single tow, the system features a Flexible Towed Body (FTB) countermeasure able to decoy and jam acoustic torpedoes, as well as providing highly effective defences against wake-homing torpedoes. This is combined with pneumatic launchers for the deployment of Expendable Acoustic Devices (EAD) in pre-programmed decoy patterns. Use of a pneumatic launch system avoids the significant safety issues associated with explosive and mortar-launched devices. The launcher also allows a range of other stores to be accommodated, such as Ultra’s LESCUT countermeasure. The system can be operated in manual, semi-automatic and fully-automatic modes.

The Torpedo Defence System has been proven at sea and is in-service with the Royal Navy, fitted across the fleet on a rotational basis. The Sonar 2170 SEA SENTOR Torpedo Defence System will classify and detect all known torpedoes, including those fitted with advanced countermeasures, and wake-homing torpedoes fitted with a non-acoustic fuse.

...
Further the brochure quotes from the "UK MoD Annual Report 2004-05" stating:

"The system is able to inform commanders of ... ships when they are under attack, and will tell them how to maneuver the ship and engage off-board countermeasures to negate the threat. The system introduces additional capability which enables commanders to take balanced and timely decisions, and is targeted to defeat modern intelligent torpedoes".

...

The brochure also quote from the "Undersea Defeisve Warfare Systems, US DoD", stating:

"Ultra demonstated active and passive detection and tracking, easy installation compatibility with existing surface ship towed systems ... detection and alerting at tactically significant ranges, minimumum false alarms, and highly accurate ATT targting. The sea trial was a resounding success".

The brochure claims the VDS and Towed Torpedo Defence System (TDS) can be safely deployed and recoved by two people in up to Sea State-6.

Note - the above was from an Ultra market brochure.

Sea Spider ( not listed on the infographic)

The Canadian Government infographic does not list the "Sea Spider", although some of the earlier lists of suspected equipment on the "Canadian Surface Combatant" listed the Sea Spider" (such as post #130 in this defencehub.live thread). The infographic states the River Class will come with "Expendable Acoustic Countermeasures".

The Sea Spider, from what I read is not an expendable "acoustic countermeasure" but rather it is a different type of torpedo counter measure, and possibly thus it is not included with the River Class Destroyer, although I speculate it is conceivable that both the Sea Sentor (from Ultra Electronics) and the "Sea Spider" from Atlas Elektronic could both be on the River Class Destroyer (although I am leaning to speculate this is not the case - due to financial considerations). There are a number of different 'expendable acoustic countermeasure" suppliers/types on the market (they tend to be MUCH less expensive than an anti-torpedo torpedo), and I do not know which one the infographic refers to.

As for the Sea Spider:

I note from the Atlas Elektronik website, that the SeaSpider is an "anti-torpedo-torpedo". ie that suggests to me it is a torpedo launched to intercept and destroy an incoming torpedo.

Components - SeaSpider - ATLAS ELEKTRONIK

Components of the SeaSpider™ – the Anti-Torpedo-Torpedo: Hardkill torpedo defence, robust performance, protects against any type of torpedo.

www.seaspider.info

A "defense-update" article from year 2022 stated :

Sea Spider to Protect Surface Vessels from Submarine’s Attacks - Defense Update:

Atlas Elektronik displayed the Sea Spider Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT) at Eurosatory 2022. The system provides an effective and affordable hard-kill solution protecting surface ships against torpedo threats.

defense-update.com

"In 2019 Atlas Elektronic Canada and Magellan Aerospace Corporation entered a design and development phase of the Sea Spider Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT) program. ... The initial CDN$ 19 million phase of that program was launched in January of that year and is expected to conclude in 2023."

Its even possible, I suppose, that both "expendable acoustic countermeasures" and the "sea spider" could be included in the River Class Destroyer, although having multiple torpedo countermeasure systems would cost more money, and like all Canadian defence contracts, money can be a big decider when it comes to making procurement decisions.

There is a bit of speculation in the above - as some aspects are not clear to me at this time.

 

[oldcpu]

There are a number of different 'expendable acoustic countermeasure" suppliers/types on the market (they tend to be MUCH less expensive than an anti-torpedo torpedo), and I do not know which one the infographic refers to.

With regard to the Expendabable Accoustic Countermeasures (EAD) while there are number of different systems, purportedly Ultra Electronics also supply one.

https://issuu.com/edrmag/docs/edr_65_-_web/s/17015006
The above source claims:

In a typical configuration, the Sea Sentor is equipped with two decoy launching systems (DLS), one deployed to port and one to starboard, containing eight expendable acoustic countermeasures (EAD).

Supplied in an environmental protective casing, each expandable stationary sonobuoy-packaged off-board countermeasure weighs 7.5 kg and is launched by a dedicated, rechargeable pneumatic system. Ultra also offers a mortar launched EAD variant allowing easy integration into existing launcher equipment, such as Mk 36 SRBOC (Super Rapid Bloom Offboard Chaff), Sea Gnat and others. Both the towed and expandable countermeasures can be programmed by the end user in the field with up to ten different settings stored simultaneously.

The torpedo detection and countermeasures system is based on a two-console stand-alone full configuration including the dedicated processing cabinet, the two countermeasure decoy launchers and their control unit, and weighs overall around 5,000 kg. Ultra’s Sea Sentor is operated by the UK, New Zealand and Turkey, with derivatives provided to India and Australia. Sixteen systems have been initially delivered to the UK Royal Navy and are being used on both front line and support ships when required.

 

[oldcpu]

With regard to the Expendabable Accoustic Countermeasures (EAD) while there are number of different systems, purportedly Ultra Electronics also supply one.

A bit more on this topic, where my reference for this post is a much older May-2020 Warzone article:

The Shadowy World Of Submarine And Ship-Launched Torpedo Countermeasures

Surviving below the waves relies primarily on stealth, but if detected, countermeasures may be your only shot of keeping out of a watery grave.

www.twz.com

I think it clear from the Canadian government infographic of the River Class destroyer, that the underwater warfare sensors and SENTOR torpedoe detection system is coming from Ultra Electronics.

In regards to that, the Warzone article refers to an Ultra Electronics "Launched Expendable Scutter" (LESCUT) decoy (for surface ships) and the Submarine Scutter (SUBSCUT) expendable decoy (for submarines), where one could speculate that LESCUT could be the expendable(s) under consideration for the River Class.

The Warzone describes SUBSCUT:

Submarine Scutter (SUBSCUT) and Launched Expendable Scutter (LESCUT) are reactive decoys built by Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems and Rafael of Israel. SUBSCUT is pre-loaded into internal signal launchers or external launchers—launch tubes that house the countermeasure devices, and can be automatically deployed upon torpedo detection.

The decoy will hover between a depth of 10 and 300 meters listening for the incoming torpedo. A torpedo’s active sonar is analyzed by the decoy and classified. SUBSCUT customizes its own acoustic decoy transmission to the specific type of incoming torpedo, including the Doppler effect. Doppler effect is important to deceiving torpedo logic because it is one of the many checks the torpedo circuits can make during target verification. When the internal battery runs out, the decoy erases its software and sinks. LESCUT is the surface ship counterpart to SUBSCUT and is launched with a rocket motor from a chaff tube topside into the water.

The Warzone article notes (above) that LESCUT is the surface ship counterpart to SUBSCUT.

Obviously, all of this is speculation in regards to incorporation on the River Class Destroyer.

I have yet thou, to find a recent article indicating SeaSpider has been selected for the River Class Destroyer, and given these sorts of things can have security classifications associated, its possible such will never appear in the unclassified press for some time.

 

[oldcpu]

I think it clear from the Canadian government infographic of the River Class destroyer, that the underwater warfare sensors and SENTOR torpedoe detection system is coming from Ultra Electronics.

....e one could speculate that LESCUT could be the expendable(s) under consideration for the River Class.
....
Obviously, all of this is speculation in regards to incorporation on the River Class Destroyer.

In regards to "LESCUT" (which purportedly is a reactive decoy built by Ultra Electronics Ocean Systems and Rafael of Israel) I note the following reference:

Guarding ships against the modern torpedo threat - Issuu

With an enlarging number of conventional and nuclearpowered submarines, the worldwide naval forces’ surface component is increasingly reliant on effective torpedo defence systems (TDSs). © Ultra Electronics

issuu.com

To quote from that reference description of LESCUT:

Rafael Advanced Defence Systems developed substantial experience in torpedo defence with the Scutter submarinelaunched countermeasure and the surface version called Launched Expendable Scutter (Lescut), alongside the more recent Shade defence suite and Torbuster decoy for submarine applications.

Lescut is an intelligent, third generation reactive countermeasure, designed to identify the incoming threat and provide a customized response. Lescut is based on the Ultra Naval Systems and Sensors hardware and Rafael’s proven reactive acoustic module electronics and software. It requires noprelaunch input or tests, shortening the response time and eliminating errors due to incorrect settings or operator mistakes.

Designed to respond simultaneously to multiple torpedoes of various types – active, passive and combined modes capable - it is programmed to defeat all types of modern torpedo logic, including range gates, Doppler shift and pulse discrimination.

After being launched by the DLS and entered into the water, countermeasure operations start with the decoy suspended to its operating depth. Lescut analyses the environment and the attacking torpedo and then selects from its threat library the appropriate deception signal for emission. As a result, acoustic torpedoes home in on Lescut as the legitimate target, attacking it repeatedly, enabling the ship to evade the attack.

It operates for 10 minutes, then self-destructs and sinks. It can be deployed at short range from pneumatic launchers, at medium range using mortar launch (such as the Mk 36 DLS) or to longer ranges (over 2,000 meters) using a rocket.

Again - this is all speculation as to whether LESCUT could be the "expendable acoustic countermeasures" that the Canadian government infographic refers to.
.

 

[oldcpu]

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

A correction to this ... I note in a defence connect article:

US approves US$1.5bn FMS to support RAN’s major surface combatants

The US Department of State and Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has approved a potential US$1.5 billion (AU$2.1 billion) contract to modernise the Hobart class destroyers and for the first t

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Australia purportedly purchased "six ship sets of ... SQQ-89 Sonobuoy processing equipment for installation on the Hobart and Hunter Class ships".

The wiki on the SQQ-89 states this sonobuoy processing equipment is also on the USN Ticonderoga-class cruiser and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer:

AN/SQQ-89 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The wiki doesn't say much, other than:

AN/SQQ-89 is integrated with the AEGIS combat system and provides a full range of undersea warfare (USW) functions including active and passive sensors, underwater fire control, onboard trainer and a highly evolved display subsystem. It provides detection, classification, and targeting capability ...

Other articles note the AN/SQQ-89 is more than for just sonobuoy processing, but rather it :

provides integrated Undersea Warfare (USW) combat management, fire control, command and control, and onboard training to enable surface combatants to support engagement of USW targets in both open ocean and littoral environments.

I note the AN/SQQ-89 (in one article) was already up to v.15. So assuming sonobuoy processing modules (AN/SQQ-28 in particular) are included in the AN/SQQ-89 procurement by the USA and Australia, then I believe multiple western navies in addition to Canada (navies such as UK, USA, Australia) do provide the capability in their latest warships, to process sonobuoy information.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-sqq-28.htm (my reference for this).