• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

What if you just made the MMB with a retractable/removable roof on some versions.
Then pod mount VLS cells as needed on those ships for missions.
Obligatory Sisters of the Space age clip for the 1970s version of that idea; (should go to about 2 minutes in).


Hilariously, RCN was better as social media type promotion before social media was a thing, the whole documentary is still pretty interesting.

As an MSE guy still can't believe they got rid of the throttles for speed with those stupid fragile joysticks. I'm glad I was on there when beer was cheap as I bought a few 24s for breaking the joysticks. Who thought putting a 2" tiny joystick on a 14 gauge wire to input speed to a heavily redundant militarized control system that was all shock, flood and blast proofed was a good idea I will never know.
 
There's also the Type 83 destroyer in development. Some of the rumblings about it suggests 96 cells and a displacement of over 10,000 tons with some anti-surface and ASW capabilities.
 
For the Aussies bit surprised they didn't go with supplementing the Hunter with a whack of smaller go fasts with a small complement of missiles, with limited crew and short(ish) endurance for coastal defence.

Thought the whole point of AEGIS was to be able to mesh different units together and coordinate defence/attack over Link or similar, so a few big expensive ships, a bunch of cheap small ships, ground units etc could all work together but maybe I'm missing something in the details.

That same kind of logic doesn't really work for Canada as much because it seems we assume our ships will be fighting far away from Canada(although some kind of shore based deployable missile batteries probably would help for continental defence), but for the Aussies a mix of blue and brown water ships makes much more sense.

I suppose this is all idle speculation anyway, Canada's public goals and the RCNs operational capability requirements are never backed up by adequate funding, resources or people. If we can't even keep ships up to basic commercial standards for cargo ships going between A and B, things like combatant ship recoverability are pretty aspirational. No worries though, that hole through a watertight bulkhead for some random cat 5 cable means that little Billy has wifi, so who cares about flooding, smoke propagation or structural integrity?
 
I think I pointed this exact trade off out a little while ago (or I thought about it and didn't). I think that this missile load out would be a mistake.

At the end of the day do the Aussies want another AAW destroyer or a GP frigate. This ship they are showing is half pregnant. The radar/sensors are not optimized for AAW, and taking out the mission bay means they are no longer optimized for the General Purpose role that they bought the Hunter class for in the first place. I think the CSC would be better suited for a setup like that over the Hunter class given the sensor suite and CMS Canada is getting.

Also I find it interesting just how "thick" the ship looks. They really did change some of the dimensions on her to fit all those extra missiles.

The Hunters will have 6 panel L-band AESA array for long range search, 6 panel S-band AESA array for short-medium range, and a 4 panel AESA array illuminator for fire control, along with AEGIS baseline 9 combat system (including cooperative engagement). How much more AAW capability do you think they need?
 
For the Aussies bit surprised they didn't go with supplementing the Hunter with a whack of smaller go fasts with a small complement of missiles, with limited crew and short(ish) endurance for coastal defence.

Thought the whole point of AEGIS was to be able to mesh different units together and coordinate defence/attack over Link or similar, so a few big expensive ships, a bunch of cheap small ships, ground units etc could all work together but maybe I'm missing something in the details.

That same kind of logic doesn't really work for Canada as much because it seems we assume our ships will be fighting far away from Canada(although some kind of shore based deployable missile batteries probably would help for continental defence), but for the Aussies a mix of blue and brown water ships makes much more sense.

I suppose this is all idle speculation anyway, Canada's public goals and the RCNs operational capability requirements are never backed up by adequate funding, resources or people. If we can't even keep ships up to basic commercial standards for cargo ships going between A and B, things like combatant ship recoverability are pretty aspirational. No worries though, that hole through a watertight bulkhead for some random cat 5 cable means that little Billy has wifi, so who cares about flooding, smoke propagation or structural integrity?
They are building many of these.


ttps://www.naval-technology.com/news/australia-receives-its-sixth-evolved-cape-class-patrol-vessel/#:~:text=Austal%2C%20an%20Australian%20shipbuilding%20company,(RAN)%20on%2013%20October.

But are having teething problems with these.


So they can put the POD missiles on the back! :)
 
The Hunters will have 6 panel L-band AESA array for long range search, 6 panel S-band AESA array for short-medium range, and a 4 panel AESA array illuminator for fire control, along with AEGIS baseline 9 combat system (including cooperative engagement). How much more AAW capability do you think they need?
An area air defence capability. That setup can do limited area air defence. Its optimized for point/self defence and local defence (crossing targets). Area air will have to rely on offboard sensors.

Can it participate in an area air role? Yes. Can it run the show? No.

I think the main concern Australia is currently facing is that their previously made procurement decisions are not gelling with the reality that they currently find themselves in. Australia is going to be standing off against China in the Pacific, a 32 cell GP frigate with a bend towards ASW does not suit this goal. Chinese threats are chiefly going to be largely missile based, not submarines especially with Australia will eventually have their own best in class SSN capability to undertake ASW. The Hobart class is good enough capability wise but for a shooting war with China, there is far too few of them and they still don't have the cells/sensors to be overly useful. I can see this as a way for Australia to get more cells without having to cut down the Hunter class for some alternative DDG built either at home or abroad. The current radar and sensor suite in general is not suited for an overt AAW role, I agree 100% however, Australia might not have much of a choice as they are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to trying to get more cells to sea.

Something like 6 original Hunter spec variants and 3 of these AAW spec Hunter variants might be a reasonable way to keep the fleet balanced.

Those subs won't be anywhere near Australia for a long time, the Hunter will be available much sooner, as such Australia need submarine defence. Also lets break this down for a minute.

  1. Does anyone actually think China is going to try and attack Australia? - unlikely, China wants to project power near to their shore based support
  2. If they are what naval units are most likely to be able to do that? - submarines are
  3. Does anyone actually think that ANY ship can survive inside the first island chain? - no one thinks this, even the US is planning a second island chain defence with projecting power into the first island chain
  4. Is Australia expecting to send expeditionary units into the South China sea and fight? - perhaps, but since no ship can survive why would you do that?
  5. Given this information what platform is more important? - I would argue a GP frigate is more important, particularly with UXV warfare becoming a thing
The Aussie press is very tabloidy and are creating a tempest in a teapot. Australian defence planning has suddenly become a popularity contest done in public instead of by the sober house of commons where they had a good thing going with multiparty support of the defence spending generally. Recently its become quite a circus with a lot of non-experts/self proclaimed experts complaining.
 
An area air defence capability. That setup can do limited area air defence. Its optimized for point/self defence and local defence (crossing targets). Area air will have to rely on offboard sensors.

Can it participate in an area air role? Yes. Can it run the show? No.
Not sure why you assume they're limited to point defence. CEAFAR with AEGIS Baseline 9 is a pretty potent combination, hence their load out including SM-2 and SM-6.

 
Last edited:
They are building many of these.


ttps://www.naval-technology.com/news/australia-receives-its-sixth-evolved-cape-class-patrol-vessel/#:~:text=Austal%2C%20an%20Australian%20shipbuilding%20company,(RAN)%20on%2013%20October.

But are having teething problems with these.


So they can put the POD missiles on the back! :)
Thanks, I missed that completely; makes sense I guess with how big their op area is to have a larger coastal patrol boat.

In crowded areas like the Straights of Hormuz the speed boats make more sense, especially if you can operate them remotely and send a fire control solution to the missiles. Lot easier to target an area if you don't care about whoever is in the box and aren't worried about the wrong target.
 
Not sure why you assume they're limited to point defence. CEAFAR with AEGIS Baseline 9 is a pretty potent combination, hence their load out including SM-2 and SM-6.

I didn't say that. I said point/self and local while contributing to area air defence.

CEAFAR radars have never been integrated with Aegis before, - technical risk here
CEAFAR radars need to be able to reach out to 150nm to match a SPY system radar - L band can do it, but with that few emmitters can it get the power needed?
CEAFAR radars need to be able to volume search 150nm all the way out like SPY systems do - L band is supposed to do this (the UK, Dutch and Germans use L band for this), the L band is a new addition to the CEAFAR system. It remains to be seen if there is enough emmitters to do volume search and not miss things.
CEAFAR radars can't do BMD. - again relying on L band. The UK and Dutch use massive SMART L radars to do this, the US uses the SPY, which has so much power it's low in the ship. Again I don't see the CEAFAR being able to put out the power

If the CEAFAR was such an amazing system why haven't other countries bought it but instead choose to go with something else? No radar has better press than the CEAFAR and yet it only has a single user. Hell, the Germans sell more radars then the Aussies and yet somehow no one talks about the TRS-3D.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its amazingness is overblown. Its a radar, like other radars, and has pros/cons depending on its design.
 
I didn't say that. I said point/self and local while contributing to area air defence.

CEAFAR radars have never been integrated with Aegis before, - technical risk here
CEAFAR radars need to be able to reach out to 150nm to match a SPY system radar - L band can do it, but with that few emmitters can it get the power needed?
CEAFAR radars need to be able to volume search 150nm all the way out like SPY systems do - L band is supposed to do this (the UK, Dutch and Germans use L band for this), the L band is a new addition to the CEAFAR system. It remains to be seen if there is enough emmitters to do volume search and not miss things.
CEAFAR radars can't do BMD. - again relying on L band. The UK and Dutch use massive SMART L radars to do this, the US uses the SPY, which has so much power it's low in the ship. Again I don't see the CEAFAR being able to put out the power

If the CEAFAR was such an amazing system why haven't other countries bought it but instead choose to go with something else? No radar has better press than the CEAFAR and yet it only has a single user. Hell, the Germans sell more radars then the Aussies and yet somehow no one talks about the TRS-3D.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its amazingness is overblown. Its a radar, like other radars, and has pros/cons depending on its design.

Public domain information indicates that AEGIS baseline 9 and SM-6 are both capable of terminal ABM defence.

The significant increase in displacement of the Hunter class over the RN Type 26 (and also the Canadian CSC) has often been publicly stated as being due to CEAFAR and its power and cooling requirements. It's certainly not a lightweight radar.
 
Public domain information indicates that AEGIS baseline 9 and SM-6 are both capable of terminal ABM defence.

The significant increase in displacement of the Hunter class over the RN Type 26 (and also the Canadian CSC) has often been publicly stated as being due to CEAFAR and its power and cooling requirements. It's certainly not a lightweight radar.
I agree with @Underway on this. CEAFAR and CEAFAR 2 are hugely hyped by Australian industry, (understandable - they are trying to create a domestic industry), but have not had any international sales success, which says something, surely. Being physically heavy because of cooling requirements does not indicate anything with regards to capability, other than the panels are probably not electrically efficient, which is not a good thing. Nothing I've read in the public domain would lead me to conclude that CEAFAR2 is a superior radar system. That does not mean it's a bad radar system. It's just not the cat's meow some make it out to be. I believe we chose well with SPY7 for CSC.
 
Public domain information indicates that AEGIS baseline 9 and SM-6 are both capable of terminal ABM defence.

The significant increase in displacement of the Hunter class over the RN Type 26 (and also the Canadian CSC) has often been publicly stated as being due to CEAFAR and its power and cooling requirements. It's certainly not a lightweight radar.
To do BMD you need to do the detect to engage sequence. This requires the following (very generalized) steps.

Detect, localize, identify (classify), track, target, engage, kill assessment.

You can see from this list that AEGIS and sensors are completely integrated with each other in every step. Detect, localize, identify, track are all very sensor dependant. AEGIS can only identify, track, target and kill assess what the sensor gives it. Now where the radar processing ends and AEGIS processing begins is pretty much trying to peel a peanut butter sandwitch apart after its made... but you get the idea. Engage is really the missiles job and then kill assessment is a sensor +AEGIS job again.

As far as public domain info, CEAFAR itself is a light radar. CEAFAR-2 I don't know. It's a lot more radar than the OG CEAFAR. The CEAFAR-2 might be really heavy and require a ton of cooling. If that's the case then its lost one of the things going for it (though might have gained some other stuff). The Aussies also put 8 more VLS onboard than Canada and the UK did. That's requiring more length, and all the dimensions scale up from there.
 
Back
Top