The Royal Canadian Navy has sent the frigate HMCS Ville de Québec to join with the Royal Navy Carrier Strike Group deployment. The ship sailed from her home port of Halifax, Nova Scotia on 7th April and arrived in Devonport today ahead of the trip to the Indo-Pacific region.
Preparations for the deployment, named Operation HORIZON by the RCN, have been underway for over a year and HMCS Ville de Québec has been given combat system and communications upgrades to facilitate its integration with the CSG. For the UK this is another opportunity to deepen interoperability with a key partner, operating together for a much longer period than is usually the case
Halifax-class frigate, Ville de Québec was launched in 1991 and will be the oldest vessel in the carrier strike group (apart from RFA Argus, scheduled to join the second phase of the deployment). The class are broadly comparable to the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates in age, size, and role. Like the RN, the RCN is suffering from long delays to building replacements. The Halifax class will have to stagger on even longer than the Type 23s, potentially serving into the 2040s until the Type 26-based River-Class destroyers are ready to take their place. The RCN has also been struggling with personnel shortages, and in 2024, Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, RCN, publicly described the navy as being in a critical state.
Like the Type 23s the ships have had been modernised under the Halifax-Class Modernisation/Frigate Life Extension (HCM/FELEX) programme with enhanced command systems, sensors and weapons. Ville de Québec completed her modernisation between October 2014 and December 2015 (which compares well with the 3-4 year Type 23 LIFEX projects).
Configured primarily for anti-submarine warfare the Halifax-class are equipped with an RCAF-operated CH-148 Cyclone helicopter. The ship is also fitted with twin Mk 32 Mod 9 torpedo tubes for Mk 46 or Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes, supported by an upgraded underwater warfare suite that includes the AN/SQS-510 hull-mounted sonar and a towed array.
They are armed with a 57mm Mk 3 Bofors naval gun mounted forward, providing close-in defence against surface and air threats. The gun has a high rate of fire and is effective against fast-attack craft and low-flying aircraft. Air defence is provided by the 16-cell Mk 48 vertical launch system loaded with RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM), offering short-to-medium range protection against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. This system is loosely equivalent in function to the Sea Ceptor system now fitted to RN frigates, albeit with a different architecture.
Surface engagement capability is delivered via twin quad launchers for RGM-84 Harpoon Block II missiles. Retaining Harpoon makes the Halifax-class one of the few Western frigates outside the US Navy to retain a heavyweight surface strike missile, a role now partially gapped in the RN until FC/ASW is fielded.
Self-defence is enhanced by multiple layers including the Rheinmetall MASS decoy system and Nulka active missile decoys, providing soft-kill options against incoming guided weapons. The Electronic Warfare suite and the Combat Management System (CMS 330) have been substantially upgraded, significantly improving situational awareness and response speed to complex threats.
Ensuring compatibility with trusted partners like the RCN remains a key priority for the RN. The CSC River-class destroyers will have great commonality with the RN’s Type 26 and will offer opportunities for greater interoperability, shared support and operating experience. With the recent upheaval in US politics, Canada is increasingly looking towards its alliances with European nations.
Great to see the Royal Canadian Navy taking part in CSG 25. Fair winds and following seas to the Ship’s Company of HMCS Ville de Québec.
It does make the RN’s current predicament slightly easier to swallow, knowing that it could be worse.
Is the basal CAMM equivalent to the ESSM? I would argue not entirely, given that its effective range is significantly (50%) shorter, its maximum velocity is a Mach number slower (3 compared to 4) and its much smaller warhead (10kg compared to 40kg). The ESSM is much more of a true short-to-medium-range interceptor, compared to CAMM, which essentially functions as an extended-range point-defence system. They both fill slightly different roles to one another, and are optimised to be best-in-class for their differing roles respectively.
CAMM-ER is supposedly more optimised for that short-to-medium-range niche, but its performance hasn’t exactly been stellar compared to competitors such as the IRIS-T SLM.
Edit: apologies, I hadn’t clocked the ‘loosely’ qualifier.
The Camm is both very short and medium range and more manoeuvrable plus does away with single channel fire control that ESSM uses -target illumination. Of course Camm is lower weight and cost.
The ESSM needs an ‘inner layer’ supplemental weapon system such as RAM or Phalanx
Describing a missile with a 25km effective range as medium-range is a bit of a stretch. CAMM-ER occupies that niche better, but reportedly struggled to remain effective at extended ranges and was actually described by the Swiss Government as more meriting a ‘short-range’ monicker.
Indeed, CAMM and ESSM are built for different purposes, but overlap slightly. Both are probably the best in their respective niches.
25km ( likely more) is medium range. MBDA says its short to medium range or local area when used for naval applications
25km is medium range? Perhaps this is a product of CAMM replacing both Sea Wolf and Rapier, both of which had significantly shorter ranges. Compared to those systems, CAMM appears medium range.
However, in comparison to international medium range systems, CAMM is significantly lacking in range. ESSM, CAMM-ER, IRIS-T SLM all offer significantly improved range. That’s ignoring that MBDA are marketing the 100km variant of CAMM as ‘medium range’ as well, and that CAMM-ER has been described as a short-range system, despite offering significantly improved range over CAMM.
As to that ‘likely more’ statement, I don’t doubt that CAMM can travel significantly further than 25km. However, I highly doubt that it is an effective missile at those ranges. The two missiles that fit into CAMM’s bracket as developed SRAAMs, IRIS-T SLS and VL-MICA both have significantly reduced performance at extended range. CAMM-ER, the development of CAMM, was described by the Swiss government after it had been rejected from air defence trials as lacking in terminal agility at extended range.
I think the confusion is arising in the difference between ground and naval air defence systems.
Naval “range bands” tend to be much shorter because CIWS missiles are a thing, and so the meaning of point defence changes.
At sea there is realistically no need for a 400km range missile beyond BMD, so for everything below that specific role, ranges get shorter relative to the terrestrial launch.
I’d say in the naval role:
Short range is up to 15kmMedium range up to 80kmLong range >80kmIn the ground based role:
VSHORAD up to 10kmSHORAD up to 30kmMRAD up to 100kmHIMADS/Long range beyond that.So CAMM is exactly what it says on the tin, the bottom end of medium. In other words, its’s a “local area air defence missile”.
EDIT:
CAMM also, weirdly, is one of the only missiles for which the published range is the bottom bracket rather than the upper limit. For example, even within MBDA CAMM’s range is “>25km” and VL MICA’s range is “up to 20km”.
And the Australians reportedly hit a target 65km away with ASRAAM.
“ And the Australians reportedly hit a target 65km away with ASRAAM”
What sort of a target?
If we are talking air launched the saving in burn rate is important to range as accelerating from Mach 1 -> 3 horizontally at altitude is a whole different set of energetics to vertical launch -> turn -> accelerate [in dense air] -> gain altitude etc
yes actually if you review Uk official and NATO documents 25km sits well in the definition of medium range. Just because it replaced a short range missile does not make it a short range missile.. sea Wolf had a range of less than 10km CAMM a range of more than 25km one was a short range missile the other a medium range missile.
Well, I’ll bow to official documents, if you can provide a source for them.
In regards to your comments on Sea Wolf being short-range, I’d argue that it was essentially a point-defence missile system, given it had a range less than that of the RAM systems used onboard American vessels.
Cant compare 80s era missile and its technology with say the latest block 2 RAM with 14km./7.5nm
The earliest Block 1 RAM was comparable to Sea Cat in its range
Vertical launch Sea Wolf had a range of around 10km, whereas the Block 1 RAM, from about the same era, had a 10km range.
I think you’re refering to RAM Block 0 with the Sea Cat comment.
I agree on Sea Wolf good as it was fir its time.
anything over 10nm is medium range and CAMM is GREATER than 25km, with reported test engagements out to 50km.lso yes it sits exactly in the description of a medium range air defence missile.
People on this site love to suggest that CAMM can perform at ranges almost double those disclosed for it. Whilst the missile might have reached those ranges in testing, it is highly unlikely that it retained sufficient performance at those ranges to effectively engage the full spectrum of airborne targets. Several of those range figures have been derived from ASRAAM testing as well, and therefore benefit from the additional altitude and speed of the launching aircraft, compared to surface launch roles. Both the comparable missiles to CAMM, the IRIS-T SLS and MICA-VL lose performance rapidly once they pass their disclosed range. Whilst CAMM benefits more from its clean airframe, its doubtful that it would be making shots double its disclosed range against complex or even agile targets.
As to your claims for range bracket, do you have a source?
In an interview with Janes MBDA confirmed that CAMM had intercepted targets at 60km. But….that would have been a target that was ‘co-operating’.
As ever the altitude, speed and orientation of the target matters…CAMM is not going to be making higher altitude interceptions, I’m a big fan of CAMM-ER adoption on CAMM ships for that reason…
And manufacturers claims/releases of data vary significantly between nations…we learnt that lesson with Sea Slug compared to Talos, when everyone looked at the hit pk in comparison and thought that Sea Slug was junk…only it turned out the USN definition of a hit was vastly different from the RN’s…turned out Sea Slug was actually better…
Personally I think CAMM range of 25km should be taken as a normal maximum against most targets. CAMM-ER will have double that at least given the increased rocket engine size. That also tallies with CAMM-MR having >100km
‘Personally I think CAMM range of 25km should be taken as a normal maximum against most targets. CAMM-ER will have double that at least given the increased rocket engine size. That also tallies with CAMM-MR having >100km’
100% agree with this.
That means ‘ sea skimming missiles at high speed’. Many slower higher altitude targets would be better range.
“ definition of a hit was vastly different from the RN’s…turned out Sea Slug was actually better…”
I find that an entertaining though.
But IRL UK Gen1 missiles had an undeservedly poor reputation – everything else was actually worse.
I don’t know if Ville de Quebec has them, but apparently the RCN has achieved IOC on the ESSM Block 2. Block 2 has an active seeker. While the Halifax class does carry a Phalanx for last ditch point defense, the ESSM Block 2 is actually no slouch at short range and is very maneuverable. Here’s a pic of one turning horizontal to go after a near target not far above the mast of the former Spruance class Self Defense Test Ship. Looks like it could have similar short range performance to CAMM.
Has a minimum range, couple of km still, that Camm doesnt
Its obvious that the USN needs an inner range protective system fitted to their ships , RAM is such a missile system
That image doesn’t show any real manoeuvrability compared to thrust vectoring for Camm
That render doesn’t really do it justice either. This image from a Sky Sabre launch is a little clearer, especially when comparing the change in orientation against vertical altitude. The CAMM has rotated significantly further in a much smaller altitude.
CAMM minimum engagement range of 200m is exceptional, even RAM has a minimum engagement range of 400m.
I’d wager that CAMM is significantly cheaper than RAM as well (last cost for RAM was >$1.5m per round, as per recent Japan buy). I’d actually expect CAMM to come in at at least half of that price.
Go to minute 1:00 in the video below. ESSM is highly maneuverable.
https://www.facebook.com/HMCS.NCSMWinnipeg/videos/win-launches-essm-at-rimpac-2020/256382308666304/
That video supports the arguement that is the missile with the greatest short range performance out of the two. Compared the arc made by the ESSM to the instantaneous turnover shown on the image below, it’s not comparable. Being hot-launch, much heavier and having non-lateral firing TVC means that ESSM can’t compete with CAMM, and probably shouldn’t be expected to.
After all, the ESSM is not a direct CAMM analogue. Instead, the roles filled by CAMM in the RN (point defence and local area defence) are filled by two separate systems in the USN – RAM and ESSM.
Just realised I never specified CAMM in the first sentence.
Re CAMM performance the Poles didn’t feel that way and they are spending big on CAMM-MR development. As well as having fingers in a good few pies.
The missile will have gained a lot of software and other tweaks now it has been used in anger by RN as the UK are the originators of the missile – so I’d say we are on another whole spiral iteration of improvements.
With all of that feeding into the development of the CAMM family I’d be pretty confident.
I wasn’t referring to CAMM regarding its reported performance issues at long range, but specifically to the CAMM-ER. That being said, the Poles have purchased CAMM-ER, and given those Swiss trials were conducted in 2020, I expect performance has increased considerably. I just thought I would mention it, given that often the comments on this site often tend to focus on CAMM’s very respectable positives, but leave out potential issues.
That being said, surface launched ASRAAM has reportedly reached 90% success rates in Ukraine against certain threats. Given CAMM is more agile, has guidance more suited to the SAM role and is built for the interceptor role, I expect that should Sky Sabre be delivered to Ukraine, it would likely see the astonishing performance currently enjoyed by the IRIS-T.
I wasn’t referring to CAMM regarding its reported performance issues at long range, but specifically to the CAMM-ER. That being said, the Poles have purchased CAMM-ER, and given those Swiss trials were conducted in 2020, I expect performance has increased considerably. I just thought I would mention it, given that often the comments on this site often tend to focus on CAMM’s very respectable positives, but leave out potential issues.
That being said, surface launched ASRAAM has reportedly reached 90% success rates in Ukraine against certain threats. Given CAMM is more agile, has guidance more suited to the SAM role and is built for the interceptor role, I expect that should Sky Sabre be delivered to Ukraine, it would likely see the astonishing performance currently enjoyed by the IRIS-T.
I wasn’t referring to CAMM regarding its reported performance issues at long range, but specifically to the CAMM-ER. That being said, the Poles have purchased CAMM-ER, and given those Swiss trials were conducted in 2020, I expect performance has increased considerably. I just thought I would mention it, given that often the comments on this site often tend to focus on CAMM’s very respectable positives, but leave out potential issues.
That being said, surface launched ASRAAM has reportedly reached 90% success rates in Ukraine against certain threats. Given CAMM is more agile, has guidance more suited to the SAM role and is built for the interceptor role, I expect that should Sky Sabre be delivered to Ukraine, it would likely see the astonishing performance currently enjoyed by the IRIS-T.
Camm as used by RN and british army started development 20 yrs ago to replace existing short range missiles.
Polands requirements are more recent and especially their army needed a longer range system
Their version of the Babcock frigate has the more expensive radar system, both fixed panel and rotating on topmast, to operate the longer range version . Its their high end naval warship class.
CAMM is very much a meduim range air defence missile
The UK government has very specific definitions that essentially match or exceed wider NATO understanding in most regards so the Official UK joint air defence paper 2019 is a good resource look at page 30 for the range definitions
Very short range ( CIWs) is less than 3nm
short range is out to 10nm ( 18km)
medium range is 10nm to 50nm
Long range is great that 50nm
so a missile with a range greater than 25km that has reported engagement of targets out to 50km is most definitely a medium range missile.
infact the UK definition is harsher for medium range than the official NATO definition for medium range which only goes out to the effector being delivered out to 50km..not the UKs 50nm.
Yes. The USN will fire 2 missiles at longer range and cross their fingers. RN fire 1 closer and hit the target
Is there any actual evidence for this? AFAIK, the amount of missiles tasked to an interception by the Aegis CMS is entirely dependent on how threatened the system feels from incoming missiles/aircraft. If a pair of small Shahed-type UAVs are engaged, the system would recognise their lower threat potential and fire accordingly. If a YJ-18-type supersonic seaskimmer is engaged, more missiles would be launched per threat, as the CMS is more threatened. In the era of active-homing missiles (ESSM B2, SM-2 BIIIC, SM-6 ERAM), there’s even less reason to believe the 2:1 launch ratio often tossed around. The USS Mason incident demonstrates this nicely.
As the recent Sea Ceptor launches in the Red Sea display, the RN is perfectly willing to task two missiles to a threat if it feels necessary. Indeed, it is the same with Aster-30. No Type 45 would launch a single Aster-30 to engage a sea-skimming YJ-18, or an incoming YJ-21, but they might launch a single missile against something akin to a Shahed.
Whos firing these Chinese supersonic sea skimmers you mention. Its theoretical what it really can or cant do.
A PLAN Type 055 cruiser or Type 052D destroyer can launch both the YJ-18 supersonic sea-skimmer, as well as the YJ-21 ballistic missile. Russian submarines can launch Tskirkon hypersonic cruise missiles, and their surface warships have a whole variety of old and new supersonic missiles.
Do you have any evidence that the current USN doctrine is to launch a dual salvo, and that the comparative British doctrine is a single missile salvo.
Thanks for the source, I’ll check it out at some point, but I’ll trust you for now. From the information given, it appears the qualifiers for British missile range brackets are lower than comparative American systems, in which a missile such as Aster-30, declared long-range under the 2019 UK system, would be on the lower end of medium range under the American umbrella. The American system allows for the addition of truly long-range missiles such as the SM-6, which the UK has no equivalent to.
Hi Leh I’m pretty sure the U.S. actually use the NATO standard most of the time and the nato standard is actually 50km for the boundary between medium and long range so the Uk definition is actually far harder at 50nm.
so nato fact sheet “Modular Ground Based Air Defence (Modular GBAD)” July 2021 sets the definition of NATO medium range air defence missiles as below 50km range. The exact wording of the NATO fact sheet is “ for nato, Medium range is defined as up to 50km. “
if you look at the U.S. they are now developing what they call an “extended range” medium range air defence system that will use the PAC-3 MSE as an interceptor this has a medium range of 65nm so I suspect the UK and US definition of Medium range is essentially closer than the NATO description as the US have created a new description for a 65nm missile.
essentially the range bands expand the further out you go with long range being anywhere from 50km to potential programmes that can target aircraft from 2000km away.
Hey Jonathan,
Fair enough, I take your point. From your information, I’d say that CAMM’s effective range sits at the medium-to-low position in that medium range bracket. Still medium, but not as effective at extended range as CAMM-ER or ESSM.
Indeed CAMM sits at the low end of the Meduim range spectrum and ESSM and CAMM-ER sit at the top range band for medium range..
and just to confuse the crap out of everyone CAMM-MR which is actually the long range version and sits well in the long range range at 100km…
I do suspect that the “ semi official” NATO range bands will change soon as we are seeing a new breed of extended medium range missiles out to the 70nm/100km range
infact you can really say you have
very short range ( CIWS) <5Km
short range 5-10km
medium range 10-50km
extended medium range 50-100km
long range 100km+
at some point I suspect we will see some form of extended long range AAW anti air breathing vehicle missile band beyond 250Km. Although you have very long range ABM things like SM3 that have huge ranges you can’t really count them as AAW missiles as they are effectively three stage sub orbital boosters and have no utility in attacking air breathing targets.
I found the source you’re refering to. It was published well before CAMM entered service and was withdrawn as an authoritative source in 2019.
Hi leh it’s still a well quoted and used source also the NATO definition of sub 10- 50km for medium range is still valid..
Well look who’s sailed into the party—Ville de Québec, silver fox of the CSG, looking feisty after her FELEX facelift. Served my time on HMS Iron Duke (aka “Dukey”) and always had time for the Canucks—proper allies, proper kit, and never afraid to throw hands in the grey zone.
She’s no spring frigate, but with ESSM in the quiver, Harpoons still slung, and that MASS/Nulka combo doing soft-kill with sass, she’s got more layers than a dodgy lasagne. That Cyclone’s a tidy bit of kit too—ASW’s well in hand.
Nice to have some heavyweight surface punch back in the line-up whilewe all wait for FC/ASW to stop faffing. Welcome aboard, Québec—let’s show the Indo-Pacific how it’s done.
This is Quebec with her ESSM launchers fitted behind the deck edge armour plate- pre mid life refit photo
The picture supplied ‘arriving in Plymouth’ shows no such launchers fitted ( MK56 VLS)
Image via seaforces org
The photos from today have missiles
Yeah, I’m not sure when the profile pic was taken, it must be a file photo. Here’s one dated today from Twitter. The MK56 are there.
So be it if Zelenskyy is creating WW3. It’s Donald Trump who has started WW3.He is nothing but a traitor, a communist, who deals with Russia behind every country’s back. It was disgraceful the way Trump interviewed Zilenski. It was the worst interview I have ever seen in my life.
Trump and the American current Government needs to step down immediately. So many lives have been lost without any considerations. Trump you are nothing but a trump and liar, and a traitor never seen before. You Trump should move into Russia permanently and I am sure Russia will take care of you.
Thank you RCN
It would have made more sense to invest the AOPS monies towards new (either) Frigates or Destroyers or (gasp) Submarines! NO, we have five AOPS that have no defense capabilities! What a waste!!!
The AOPS meet a very specific (Arctic patrol) Canadian requirement. There are few ships like it. It is appropriate for its role.
“ Ville de Québec completed her modernisation between October 2014 and December 2015 (which compares well with the 3-4 year Type 23 LIFEX projects).”
These hulls are built to last and have benefited from an appropriately calibrated maintenance cycles.
T23 was designed down to 18 years and maintained for that OSD. Other beauties of T23 are inaccessible voids which make refurbishment hard as you have to open the hull to see inside and you get a barrel of rusty surprises when you do go into those areas.
Supportive Bloke
The root causes of the T23 having the four key design features of a:
Was because:
No prizes for you guessing those orders came from a very senior level in RN/MOD
Why?
———————–
So, please read this Parliamentary debate on the Navy from 1982
…… just a few weeks before the scrap metal men invaded the Falkland Islands
Defence (Hansard, 15 February 1982)
Please note all the very same subject matter that is being debate here on NL today – was being debated back then:
Yep….you guessed it correctly……the very same submarine mentioned here in Hansard back in 1982 is the very same submarine still waiting for a decison about how and when to scrap it today..…. over four decades later.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
As you went south of King Neputes line back in 1982, here is a bit of bedtime reading
In 1982, A Team of Argentinian Frogmen Nearly Blew Up a British Frigate in Gibraltar – The National Interest
John Nott was very proud of *his* el cheapo frigates.
As you say the cheapness was mandated from the very top and forced downwards. We can truly say that every expense was spared.
The papers will be very interesting when they go into the National Archives – they won’t until the last T23 is retired – I hope!
He also thought aircraft carriers were useless – he’d start foaming at the mouth if you discussed this with him.
John Nott was appalling. Good job the Argies invaded. Here today gone tomorrow politician. Classic line.
Supportive Bloke
Some of what really happened down in the Falklands, and especailly what happened deep under Whitehall, is very very likely to remain
…….for many decades after the T23 is retired…….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
JOHN NOTT was a politician all PMs find. Like BROWNE,REID & FALLON.No particular ability or views,prepared to do their masters bidding to further their careers The worst kind of politician!
Notice it has 2 search radars vs 1 for T23, also the gun has a radar director contrary to T23 that only have EO and i think saw no radar director in next RN Frigates models.
The French found that EO tracking is not enough and their new FDI will all have radar director for the guns. They already had installed it in their FREMM-DA.
Italians have never been convinced by EO only and even their OPV’s have radar directors for the guns.
Cananadian gunnybangbang floatery bote.