Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 342525 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1225 on: October 10, 2018, 13:52:31 »
Not to mention it's easy to track ship movements through the Panama canal and an enemy will know that sub departing Panama is likely going to have refuel and reprovision nearby, allowing them to estimate fairly accurately how long before the sub reaches the operating theatre.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 64,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,161
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1226 on: October 10, 2018, 14:52:20 »
Missile defence capability for CSC?

Quote
Royal Danish Navy Orders SM-2 Block IIIA for Iver Huitfeldt-class Frigates

The Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization (Danish: Forsvarets Materiel- og Indkøbsstyrelse, FMI) placed an order for Raytheon SM-2 Block IIA missiles for the Royal Danish Navy (Søværnet) on October 2, 2018, according to the European online tenders platform Ted.

According to the announcement:
FMI wants to acquire up to 50 Standard Missile 2 Block IIIA (SM-2) missiles. The SM-2 missiles are self-defense missiles that are used to combat attacking enemy targets. The SM-2 missiles are fired from the Navy frigates. The acquisition can only be carried out through the US Navy via Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The SM-2 missiles are specially designed for shooting air targets [...] The armed forces shall use the SM-2 missiles in connection with the Navy's area air defense frigate to combat attacking enemy targets.

According to the Ted announcement, the total value of the procurement (excluding VAT) is 143 million U.S. Dollars.

The SM-2 Block IIIA will be intended for the Royal Danish Navy's Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. The three 138,9 meters air defence frigates, Iver Huitfeldt (F361), Peter Willemoes (F362), and Niels Juel (F363) are displacing 6,645 tonnes. They entered service with the Royal Danish Navy in 2012 and 2013. Each frigate can carry up to 32x SM-2 missiles (as well as 24x ESSM). These ships share their Anti-Air Warfare suite with the Royal Netherlands Navy’s De Zeven Provincien-class frigates and the German Navy’s Sachsen-class frigates. The Thales sensors of this suite include the long range surveillance radar SMART-L and the multi-function radar APAR. At least one ship of the class will be upgraded for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to act as a a BMD sensor and offer this capability to the NATO BMD system [emphasis added]...


https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/october-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6551-royal-danish-navy-orders-sm-2-block-iiia-for-iver-huitfeldt-class-frigates.html

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1227 on: October 10, 2018, 15:14:15 »
That's only 15 per ship plus 5 spares

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1228 on: October 10, 2018, 15:15:42 »
They can share.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,670
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1229 on: October 10, 2018, 19:14:11 »
I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.

A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.   I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 643
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1230 on: October 10, 2018, 19:56:29 »
Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1231 on: October 10, 2018, 20:05:15 »
Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.

Silly goose...that's not the Canadian way!


...sadly.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 643
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1232 on: October 10, 2018, 22:46:41 »
We did it once.  In the early 60's we had 62 commissioned ships, including 2 escort carriers and somewhere approaching 20,000 naval personnel and that with a population of half what it is now   They did it by making the navy a worthwhile career, getting rid of the British disciplinary tradition, and by building a modern fleet.  I think we even had 20 destroyer escorts as they were called then.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,383
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1233 on: October 11, 2018, 04:45:28 »
We also had 30+ of the best MPAs in the world, a Brigade and Air Div in Europe...times have changed.  The world is at peace now, didn't ya know?   8)
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 53,919
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,954
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1234 on: October 11, 2018, 08:10:10 »
A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.   I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".

Huh? We have 7 of 12 Frigates, Asterix, and 4 MCDVs all at sea right now. Tell me again how we can't crew our ships, or that we have very little demonstrable maritime power?

"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,670
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1235 on: October 11, 2018, 14:27:19 »
 It seems to me that it would be a herculean effort to put 7 Hals to sea (with air dets), fully armed and ready to rumble (which they are not).

Again, I'm going back to 8, and just 8, extensively equipped principal surface combatants with just one or 2 that are deployed or can be quickly deployed and actually have a chance at surviving an encounter with a peer adversary to an allied group.




Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,318
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1236 on: October 12, 2018, 12:35:11 »
8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.
6 AOPS with significantly enhanced surveillance kit (EW/ESM/SIGINT)
4 MCDV
4 SSK
2 JSS
1 Asterix

Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.

Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.

4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.

Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.
+60
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Jackal2018

  • Guest
  • *
  • 930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1237 on: October 14, 2018, 09:38:23 »
By no means I'm saying war is coming soon. But with world tensions rising, should a war break out and Canada be involved, how would the timeline for the new ships change if at all?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1238 on: October 14, 2018, 15:32:21 »
Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.

Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.

4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.

Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.

Something similar to this perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viana_do_Castelo-class_patrol_vessel

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,318
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1240 on: October 14, 2018, 17:51:37 »
Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1

**Staff edit**
 The link works, after adding a space.
:facepalm:

Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design. 

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1241 on: October 14, 2018, 18:33:35 »
Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1

**Staff edit**
 The link works, after adding a space.
:facepalm:

Thanks for the repair...and the face palm!!  😉

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1242 on: October 14, 2018, 18:41:15 »
Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design.

Interesting. I hadn’t heard that about the HERO class. Would you say they rolled worse than an MCDV? I know the SENTINEL is longer and heavier than the HERO. I take it you don’t feel it’s enough to make a difference in sea keeping. But, would that really be the end of the world in a short term patrol vessel/quick response craft? I don’t propose to use these like MCDV’s to send to Africa or even on CARIBBOPS, but keep closer to our coasts. At any rate, it’s probably a moot point. I don’t think a small patrol vessel or corvette is going to happen any time soon.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 643
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1243 on: October 14, 2018, 22:55:04 »
Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.

Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow. 

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1244 on: October 15, 2018, 04:22:23 »
Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.

Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow.

So, in that case, what best determines the ability to handle the big water? Is it that anything below the size of, say, an ANZAC class frigate is undesirable as a secondary OPV? Or can you have a vessel under 1000 tonnes and under 200 ft long with stable sea keeping in the North Atlantic? How does the MCDV handle it, given it’s size and somewhat blunt Hull design? Reading up on the SENTINEL, it was designed to be able to operate in Sea State 4 and survive in State 5. It does have anti roll fins, as well. I’m not sure if the HERO does.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1245 on: October 15, 2018, 10:15:29 »
Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1246 on: October 15, 2018, 11:24:50 »
Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.

Yes, I think that was one of the issues that sank the EDMUND FITZGERALD.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,670
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1247 on: October 15, 2018, 14:55:53 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,861
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline Half Full

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1249 on: October 15, 2018, 16:23:16 »
Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.
I can second SeaKing Tacco's assessment of the Victoria class's capabilities!
I would rather be in a boat with a drink on the rocks than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.