• 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

There was a ship like that that was proposed called the Arsenal Ship.


I think that's kinda what you mean.
Yup. Kind of. That one reminds me of the LCT(Rocket) from WW2 for shore bombardment.

450px-LCT%28R%29_459.png

450px-LCT_Launching_Rockets.jpg

Switching those to SSGNs made sense too.

I'm thinking more along the lines of something like this, whether manned or not. It looks more versatile and a task group could probably manage several of them and they're more in our price and scope range.

The_large_unmanned_surface_vessel_Nomad_arrives_at_Pearl_Harbor_to_participate_in_RIMPAC2022.jpg


To me it looks like we could build those in any shipyard. All we need is a small weapons manufacturing industry to keep them fed.

🍻
 
Yup. Kind of. That one reminds me of the LCT(Rocket) from WW2 for shore bombardment.

450px-LCT%28R%29_459.png

450px-LCT_Launching_Rockets.jpg

Switching those to SSGNs made sense too.

I'm thinking more along the lines of something like this, whether manned or not. It looks more versatile and a task group could probably manage several of them and they're more in our price and scope range.

The_large_unmanned_surface_vessel_Nomad_arrives_at_Pearl_Harbor_to_participate_in_RIMPAC2022.jpg


To me it looks like we could build those in any shipyard. All we need is a small weapons manufacturing industry to keep them fed.

🍻

Ya I know the idea was to class the Arsenal Ship as BBs.

But I like your idea of lots of sea cans full of fast blowy uppy things...
 
I'm kind of board with this cargo/container ship with you @Kirkhill. It probably comes from my artillery view of things. The weapon of the artillery is not the gun but the projectile.

I'm sure you need several sophisticated ships for force protection but you can add some cheap container ships into the mix that really just carry anti-ship, anti-air, anti-sub weaponry. It strikes me as a logical and cheap way to beef up the fire power of the force.

When I take a look at that Iranian drone carrier I say to myself that those drones should probably be relatively easy to shoot down, as long as you have an adequate supply of variable types of ant-air weaponry. But you could be swamped by drones. A cheap anti-air, anti-missile picket ship on the other hand could give you the weaponry to defeat those and protect their big brothers. My guess is we need less expensive ships and many more expensive weapons and a way to transport them to sea.

To us gunners its all about servicing targets.

🍻

There was a ship like that that was proposed called the Arsenal Ship.


I think that's kinda what you mean.

Another issue that I have is whether or not the effort expended to make a "faster" ship is worth the effort.

Huitfeldt
TypeAir defence frigate
Displacement6,645 t (6,540 long tons) (full load)
Length138.7 m (455 ft 1 in)
Beam19.75 m (64 ft 10 in)
Draft5.3 m (17 ft 5 in)
Propulsion
Speed28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Range9,000 nmi (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)[6]

Absalon
Class and typeFrigate
Displacement6,300 tonnes
Length137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion
  • 2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
  • Two shafts
  • 22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed24 knots (44 km/h)
Range9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)

Same hull. Same displacement.

The Absalon only has half the power available (16.6 MW) of the Huitfeldt (32.8 MW) but the Huitfeldt only makes 8 km/h more than the Absalon.

Given that the incoming rounds are moving at 1000 to 5000 km/h I'm inclined to think a bunch more SAMs and bullets would be more useful.
 
More arguments for at sea VLS cell replenishment.

The bit I don't get about that is that the ships would essentially be defenseless when they are doing that so you'd have to be somewhat out of the op area to do it, and somewhere with pretty calm waters. Somewhere like the Med or Black Sea it would just make more sense to set up some ground based defenses around a jetty somewhere, and similarly around the Pacific and other areas. If you want to do it at some kind of anchoring situation you'd still need some other ships to defend the high value ammunition ship and the warship doing the RAS.
 
Mirror calm
The bit I don't get about that is that the ships would essentially be defenseless when they are doing that so you'd have to be somewhat out of the op area to do it, and somewhere with pretty calm waters. Somewhere like the Med or Black Sea it would just make more sense to set up some ground based defenses around a jetty somewhere, and similarly around the Pacific and other areas. If you want to do it at some kind of anchoring situation you'd still need some other ships to defend the high value ammunition ship and the warship doing the RAS.
Mirror calm, and be quick about it. If they have to pull away when halfway in, there will be disappointed sea men everywhere. 😠
 
Last edited:
Another step forward in the development of USV's. Given our crewing issues I can't understand why the RCN isn't all over this type of program.

would involve investing in our military which OW seems reluctant to do as the first reason. Second, there is no slack in the budget to develop new weapons; we aren't keeping the things we have now working properly. Third, would require thinking outside the box and taking a chance. We are risk-adverse
 
The bit I don't get about that is that the ships would essentially be defenseless when they are doing that so you'd have to be somewhat out of the op area to do it, and somewhere with pretty calm waters. Somewhere like the Med or Black Sea it would just make more sense to set up some ground based defenses around a jetty somewhere, and similarly around the Pacific and other areas. If you want to do it at some kind of anchoring situation you'd still need some other ships to defend the high value ammunition ship and the warship doing the RAS.
It’s mostly Pacific leaning issue. Where one may move out of a ‘hot zone’ but not wanting to take another half day to get to a port.

Or depending on the bubble of your escorts - having one offline for a bit while the rest are covering it might not be a big deal - especially if you can keep a large force with a large bubble firing.
 
Second, there is no slack in the budget to develop new weapons; we aren't keeping the things we have now working properly.

There will be slack when the self-divestment programme is complete.
 
Another step forward in the development of USV's. Given our crewing issues I can't understand why the RCN isn't all over this type of program.

You think that we have money to take risks on experimental and unproven concepts like this? IF the USN can prove the concept and move it to a higher tech reliability/reality place then we'll take a look.
 
It’s mostly Pacific leaning issue. Where one may move out of a ‘hot zone’ but not wanting to take another half day to get to a port.

Or depending on the bubble of your escorts - having one offline for a bit while the rest are covering it might not be a big deal - especially if you can keep a large force with a large bubble firing.
If you can cut tranist time to and from your reload point by half, that is a significant force multiplier. Build a support task force with several AOR's , missile reload ship, supply ship & a Depot ship, combined with one of these and you can maintain your fleet almost anywhere.

Blue-Marlin-Adelaide-7-2-2014.jpg
 
If you can cut tranist time to and from your reload point by half, that is a significant force multiplier. Build a support task force with several AOR's , missile reload ship, supply ship & a Depot ship, combined with one of these and you can maintain your fleet almost anywhere.

Blue-Marlin-Adelaide-7-2-2014.jpg

Or some combination? Self-propelled magazines stackable on Semi-Submersibles?

1703212087347.png1703212099415.png1703212177020.png

 

By 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the cost for the program of 15 frigates as $77.3 billion, rising to $79.7 billion if there is a one-year delay in the start of construction and $82.1 billion if there is a two-year delay. The cost is roughly working out to be more than $5 billion per ship.

As a comparison, look at the U.S. navy’s new frigates being procured. In 2020, the navy awarded Fincantieri Marinette Marine a contract to build the navy’s new surface combatant, a guided missile frigate. The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the navy options to build as many as nine additional ships.

The U.S. navy estimates that the 10 ships would cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship, or about Canadian $1.2 billion per ship. For Canada, a similar state-of-the-art frigate will cost $5 billion, or five times more.

There are various reasons for this huge cost difference. First, for the Canadian frigate, the British Type 26 was selected, and this design is being modified to meet Canadian requirements, or Canadianized, to supposedly improve efficiency.

This obviously adds to cost. Then there is the limited production of Canadian shipyards, and periods when they are idle since Canadian naval shipbuilding needs are limited.

Hence, it is more expensive to build ships in Canadian yards. Shipyards get government financial assistance, yet provincial governments purchase their ferries from offshore yards because it is cheaper.

Perhaps the solution would be for the government to purchase the U.S. navy frigates from U.S. shipyards, and have the ongoing maintenance carried by the Canadian shipyards, at huge savings.

The lack of a rough per ship cost figure has been an absolute poison pill for discussion around the Canadian Surface Combatant. Taking the entire program cost and dividing it by how many ships procured gives you a wildly disproportionate figure but there has been no alternative provided by the Canadian government to quell these rampant claims. A report promising to provide what amounts to a per ship cost for the first trio without much of the program trappings had been said to been destined for publication in Fall 2023 but it seems that is not going to happen until sometime in 2024.

These seemingly over inflated cost figures regularly cause commentators to push for increasingly questionable ideas, like what is quoted above.
 
Last edited:



The lack of a rough per ship cost figure has been an absolute poison pill for discussion around the Canadian Surface Combatant. Taking the entire program cost and dividing it by how many ships procured gives you a wildly disproportionate figure but there has been no alternative provided by the Canadian government to quell these rampant claims. A report promising to provide what amounts to a per ship cost for the first trio without much of the program trappings had been said to been destined for publication in Fall 2023 but it seems that is not going to happen until sometime in 2024.

These seemingly over inflated cost figures regularly cause commentators to push for increasingly questionable ideas, like what is quoted above.
the GOC doesn't want to quelle the furor over costs. If anything they want to keep Canadians ticked off at the cost of the CAF. It makes for a convenient whipping post and diverts attention from reality. And finally it makes it seem like they are actually doing something very expensive to bring the forces into the 21st century when in reality they are dragging their feet on the entire portfolio
 



The lack of a rough per ship cost figure has been an absolute poison pill for discussion around the Canadian Surface Combatant. Taking the entire program cost and dividing it by how many ships procured gives you a wildly disproportionate figure but there has been no alternative provided by the Canadian government to quell these rampant claims. A report promising to provide what amounts to a per ship cost for the first trio without much of the program trappings had been said to been destined for publication in Fall 2023 but it seems that is not going to happen until sometime in 2024.

These seemingly over inflated cost figures regularly cause commentators to push for increasingly questionable ideas, like what is quoted above.
Good old Ken Hansen. Conveniently leaves out facts on how the ship is costed to gain outrage.
 
Back
Top