Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 629203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 152,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,871
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1900 on: November 11, 2020, 20:41:49 »
As usual, the story of the 18 Halifax's is a little more complex.

First of all, the first 12 - batch I - were all to be the same design, known as the City class. And we got them all.

Batch II was to be modified if possible to carry AAW area weapons and replace the IRO's. They were to be known as the Province class and bear the names of provinces (the four largest plus one from each end of the country).

The Batch II was sacrificed as a result of the Mulroney  government White Paper so that the money saved would cover the extra cost of switching the submarine replacements from 4 to 6 diesel to 6 to 8 nuclear boats. Had it happened, a navy with 12 HAL's and even just 6 Trafalgar (the preferred choice) boat would have been a lot more powerful than a HAL/Province group of 18 vessels plus 6 diesel boats.

Then two things happened: Huge federal deficits due to the recession of 1982 and, much more importantly, the sudden end of the Cold War as the USSR collapsed and the Wall fell, leading to a demand for a "peace dividend". That is what did in both the submarine replacement program (the whole thing, in any form) and the Batch II Province class vessels.
+300

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 156
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1901 on: November 12, 2020, 01:42:35 »
IMHO the Tribal names should be reserved for next generation submarines.

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 293
  • Retired word processor jockey
    • http://NA
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1902 on: November 12, 2020, 07:48:32 »
IMHO the Tribal names should be reserved for next generation submarines.

That's another possibility
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 67,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,237
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1903 on: November 12, 2020, 20:33:32 »
"next generation submarines."

The what now?
"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 dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 553,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,664
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1904 on: November 12, 2020, 20:41:14 »
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,437
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1905 on: November 12, 2020, 21:21:15 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 882
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1906 on: November 12, 2020, 22:17:46 »
great concept expect significant federal funding for the development.  Wouldn't need the JSS so big savings there.  Fully green so both the NDP and Green party will sign on as well. 

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 553,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,664
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1907 on: November 12, 2020, 22:31:36 »
Coming in 2200

Well, the Brits need to get all the useful life out of it before we get it.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1908 on: November 15, 2020, 19:53:38 »
Very nice article in the War Zone about the CSC.

Canada's New Frigate Will Be Brimming With Missiles


Some things they look at that are new: the potential for Anti Ship Tomahawk Cruise missiles and point to the anti-access/area-denial capability of these kinds of weapons, the fact that only the US, France and GB have land-attack cruise missiles in NATO and that the Sea Ceptor can double as a point defence missile if necessary.

Also an interesting opinion piece about BMD by Stealth in the CSC, from the Canadian Naval Review.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 19:56:34 by Underway »

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1909 on: November 17, 2020, 21:44:59 »
Podcast with RAdm Donovan who's the RCN's head guy for the CSC.

https://www.cgai.ca/designing_the_navys_future_ship 

Some good info for those interested in the project and how the RCN actually interacts with projects.

There are plenty of other interesting podcasts on this channel as well.  Good resource.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2020, 21:47:45 by Underway »

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 532
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1910 on: November 19, 2020, 17:40:29 »
So it seems from the graphic that we're staying with the same propulsion system as the type 26.

With regard to the the torpedoes it says twin launch tubes. But does that mean 1 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 3 tubes? So twin launchers or twin tubes?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1911 on: November 19, 2020, 20:02:25 »
So it seems from the graphic that we're staying with the same propulsion system as the type 26.

With regard to the the torpedoes it says twin launch tubes. But does that mean 1 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 3 tubes? So twin launchers or twin tubes?

A lot of the Euro navies have gone with a single twin (double barreled...) launcher.  Newer torps can turn towards the target even under the ship, whereas older ship launched torps didn't do that.  For the CSC (speculation follows) I would suspect either its a single twin launcher or two twin launchers.  Of those options I would bet on the single twin launcher.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,708
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1912 on: November 19, 2020, 23:10:43 »
A lot of the Euro navies have gone with a single twin (double barreled...) launcher.  Newer torps can turn towards the target even under the ship, whereas older ship launched torps didn't do that.  For the CSC (speculation follows) I would suspect either its a single twin launcher or two twin launchers.  Of those options I would bet on the single twin launcher.

I thought that we would acquire RUM 139C for the VLS, but a twin launcher frees up cells so thats also good news for the punch.
... Move!! ...

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1913 on: November 19, 2020, 23:29:04 »
I thought that we would acquire RUM 139C for the VLS, but a twin launcher frees up cells so thats also good news for the punch.

With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 181,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,137
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1914 on: November 20, 2020, 05:58:50 »
With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.

That is the beauty of Mk41 VLS- once you own the launcher, you can add pretty much any missile the US makes, whenever you want.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 474
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1915 on: November 20, 2020, 10:44:14 »
With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.
Or even if the helicopter is otherwise busy. I've often thought this would be a good backup to have, even just a couple would be good, I would think.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1916 on: November 20, 2020, 18:20:16 »
That is the beauty of Mk41 VLS- once you own the launcher, you can add pretty much any missile the US makes, whenever you want.

Honestly, as soon as I saw "Strike Length Cells" I and assumed it was for BMD and ASROC.  I was shocked that the actual intention was Tomahawks.

Do we ever do exchanges with the Americans or Japanese so we'd know how they tactically employ ASROC if it were later to be added to the CSC quiver?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1917 on: November 20, 2020, 18:34:50 »
Honestly, as soon as I saw "Strike Length Cells" I and assumed it was for BMD and ASROC.  I was shocked that the actual intention was Tomahawks.

Do we ever do exchanges with the Americans or Japanese so we'd know how they tactically employ ASROC if it were later to be added to the CSC quiver?

I think the true intention was future proofing.  If you have strike length you can go smaller.  As for ASROC if we got them we would do the proper training and planning to use them properly.  If that requires courses or training with allies it would be part of the plan.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1918 on: November 20, 2020, 19:22:41 »
I think the true intention was future proofing.  If you have strike length you can go smaller.  As for ASROC if we got them we would do the proper training and planning to use them properly.  If that requires courses or training with allies it would be part of the plan.

Given that Lockheed Martin is at the top of the contractor cake, I would be stunned if the LRASM wouldn’t at least be offered. And any ABM missile purchases would be hush-hush.

So who knows.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,708
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1919 on: November 23, 2020, 17:31:12 »
I would love this.  My only dislike is that Haida wouldn't be available, as the name is still currently in commission for the ceremonial flagship.  Would have loved to see HMCS Haida sailing around doing the business again.  My other vote would be for Canadian mythological creatures.  HMCS Wendigo would win the cool name award. 

AAW will be a combination of Sea Ceptor, ESSM II and SM2 MkIII.  Because the ESSM and SM2 would be placed in the VLS on the foc'sle those numbers may vary depending on the mission/threat.  The main AAW weapon however would be the SM2.  ESSM is good as "point defence" not area defense.  You can help a buddy who's close but its like the infield compared to the entire ballpark that is SM2.

I would expect a standard loadout would be 24 Sea Ceptors (as their launchers are dedicated to them), 24 ESSM (taking up 8 VLS as they are quad packed) and then 24 SM2.  If you were carrying tomahawks of course the SM2 numbers might be reduced to as low as 16.  That's speculation though, you could mix and match all those VLS numbers for your mission.  You could specialize in the role for the task group.  One CSC as a dedicated land attack platform carries all the tomahawks and the other three carry the SM2's to protect it.

I'm not entirely sure what capability the 127mm has for air warfare, I think its advertised as having some, but with its rate of fire/traverse I would suspect that it's not considered a viable option for anything other than slow moving targets.

A little (reloadable) point defence humour:
... Move!! ...

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 474
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1920 on: November 23, 2020, 17:48:26 »
A little (reloadable) point defence humour:
That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells. Oops, that was meant for Underway.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 532
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1921 on: November 23, 2020, 20:45:26 »
Thanks Underway and others for the torpedo comments

Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?

Just to note the primary differences in armament between the UK/AUS/CAN versions. via Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate

the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS

the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
           24 cell mk41
CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
           32 cell mk 41
AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor










Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1922 on: November 23, 2020, 22:15:32 »
That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells.

Math is hard.

Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?

None that I know of.  Maybe low and really slow, like hovering slow.  The 30mm are for surface engagements.  Having them on the quarters is a good place for them as if you turn the ship away from fast boat attackers you have quite good arcs of fire.  And you increase the time to intercept.  It's like the Brits planned it that way.


the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS

the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
           24 cell mk41
CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
           32 cell mk 41
AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor

It's interesting the different ways each nation has gone.  All three have selected a different radar and different weapons loadouts for their particular strategic situations and fleet mix.  Not having a large amphib or carrier to defend our fleet mix is different, thus our choices were as well.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,708
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1923 on: November 23, 2020, 22:28:29 »
Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good?

Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm. Or is this type of low cost secondary armament just not worth listing at this time for such a large and complex program? 

Cheers.
... Move!! ...

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,211
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1924 on: November 24, 2020, 09:53:29 »
Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good?

AFAIK the Phalanx wasn't even part of the bid.  In almost every category Sea Ceptor is way better than the CIWS. And with a 30mm to cover off the surface engagement portion there really is no need for CIWS.

My personal opinion is that CIWS time has come.  Its a bandaid measure that's cheap, familiar and does little in a modern battlespace.  It's the smaller calibre armament that is waiting for its Battle of Tsushima moment.  Better to have a dedicated small boat killer weapon (30mm) which is designed to do that job, and can engage multiple targets over longer engagements.

Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm.

So I looked up the 30mm from BAE and the open-source states that it's got the ability to attack UAS with the "capability to engage close-in air threats at greater than 65 degrees elevation coupled with the air-bursting munition offers outstanding probability of hit and mission success".  The 30mm version can be fitted with a coaxial 50 cal, it also uses FLIR, EO/IR and laser rangefinding to track targets.  The range is approx 3 km (which is interesting because Sea Ceptor has a min published range of 1km).

They are also working on a laser weapon that could be mounted in the same place of be coaxial to the 30mm.

So yah, options vs UAS.  Not sure how effective but options.