- Reaction score
- 27,902
- Points
- 1,090
If it requires humans to operate, you're saying there will be no NWOs onboard?
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,335
- Points
- 1,160
What is the smallest ship necessary to house humans for an extended period?
I'll propose the Tamar.
| Class and type | Batch 2 River-class patrol vessel |
| Displacement | 2,000 t (2,000 long tons) |
| Length | 90.5 m (296 ft 11 in)[3] |
| Beam | 13 m (42 ft 8 in) |
| Draught | 3.8 m (12 ft 6 in) |
| Speed | 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph) |
| Range | 5,500 nmi (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) |
| Endurance | 35 days |
| Boats & landing craft carried | 2 × PAC24 Mk4 Sea Boats; Unmanned underwater vehicles may be embarked for mine countermeasures |
| Troops | up to 50 |
| Crew | 34-45[4][5][6] |
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,034
- Points
- 1,160
You could transit the ship to a region on a minimal crew and then have the bulk of the crew fly over. Also leave a ship in the region (if you have support) and fly relief crews in. You do lose some training opportunities, but it may give sailors a needed break.
- Reaction score
- 6,789
- Points
- 1,140
Even at that size it's a large target for enemy fire, meaning it would require self defense systems, meaning it would need more people, meaning it would need to be bigger, etc...
Essentially, you'd get back to a CPF size or larger ship with at least 100 people onboard to operate and maintain it.
I'm not suggesting optionally crewed arsenal ships are a bad idea, I just see a very limited wartime use for them. Given the RCN hasn't been at war on any great scale since WWII, I suspect our efforts are better directed in toward systems we will use all the time. Let the USN/US Defence contractors develop the arsenal ships, and have a Canadian shipbuilding and weapons industry that is able to pump them out as required to support our allies. Much like we did the with Flower Class corvette, Lancaster, Sherman, etc...
Rather than invest in boutique boats with extremely limited usefulness, that money would be spent on making Canada's industrial base more robust so we can surge production of critical war supplies for our allies.
- Reaction score
- 8,335
- Points
- 1,160
For Reference
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
As I noted the transition will be paced. But by 2045 the USN is envisaging 3 Large USVs for every Constellation Frigate with some USVs acting as sensor platforms and others as munitions carriers.
Seahunter is a Medium USV while Ranger is a Large USV. Ranger launched an SM6 from a TEU-40 Payload Delivery System.
....
By 2045 Canada will be taking delivery of the last of its CSCs.
UPDATED: Navy’s Force Design 2045 Plans for 373 Ship Fleet, 150 Unmanned Vessels - USNI News
This post has been updated with comments from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday The latest plan to design a future force calls for a fleet of 373 manned ships, buttressed by about 150 unmanned surface and underwater vehicles by 2045, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike...
news.usni.org
CNO: Navy to Finalize Large Unmanned Surface Vessel Requirements Later This Year - USNI News
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy will finish the requirements for its future fleet of Large Unmanned Surface Vessels this year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News on Tuesday. “The [capabilities development document] is being developed right now to deliver in 2023. That...
news.usni.org
As I noted the transition will be paced. But by 2045 the USN is envisaging 3 Large USVs for every Constellation Frigate with some USVs acting as sensor platforms and others as munitions carriers.
Seahunter is a Medium USV while Ranger is a Large USV. Ranger launched an SM6 from a TEU-40 Payload Delivery System.
....
By 2045 Canada will be taking delivery of the last of its CSCs.
- Reaction score
- 6,789
- Points
- 1,140
In the '80s and '90s the US army said they'd be flying these...For Reference
UPDATED: Navy’s Force Design 2045 Plans for 373 Ship Fleet, 150 Unmanned Vessels - USNI News
This post has been updated with comments from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday The latest plan to design a future force calls for a fleet of 373 manned ships, buttressed by about 150 unmanned surface and underwater vehicles by 2045, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike...
CNO: Navy to Finalize Large Unmanned Surface Vessel Requirements Later This Year - USNI News
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy will finish the requirements for its future fleet of Large Unmanned Surface Vessels this year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News on Tuesday. “The [capabilities development document] is being developed right now to deliver in 2023. That...
As I noted the transition will be paced. But by 2045 the USN is envisaging 3 Large USVs for every Constellation Frigate with some USVs acting as sensor platforms and others as munitions carriers.
Seahunter is a Medium USV while Ranger is a Large USV. Ranger launched an SM6 from a TEU-40 Payload Delivery System.
....
By 2045 Canada will be taking delivery of the last of its CSCs.
and shooting these...
The USN was supposed to have been sailing around in Ticonderoga replacements based on these since 2017.
Only 3 of the 32 originally planned Zumwalt's were built...
All this to say, just because some fancy technology is envisioned for future mass adoption by the military does not mean it will actually be adopted. There will be a roll for automated ships, but take any grand plans at this stage with a pound or two of salt.
- Reaction score
- 17,232
- Points
- 1,010
If we do it right, no it won’t be the last CSC. 18 months later will be the first of something else launched to replace CSC #1…For Reference
UPDATED: Navy’s Force Design 2045 Plans for 373 Ship Fleet, 150 Unmanned Vessels - USNI News
This post has been updated with comments from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday The latest plan to design a future force calls for a fleet of 373 manned ships, buttressed by about 150 unmanned surface and underwater vehicles by 2045, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike...
CNO: Navy to Finalize Large Unmanned Surface Vessel Requirements Later This Year - USNI News
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy will finish the requirements for its future fleet of Large Unmanned Surface Vessels this year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News on Tuesday. “The [capabilities development document] is being developed right now to deliver in 2023. That...
As I noted the transition will be paced. But by 2045 the USN is envisaging 3 Large USVs for every Constellation Frigate with some USVs acting as sensor platforms and others as munitions carriers.
Seahunter is a Medium USV while Ranger is a Large USV. Ranger launched an SM6 from a TEU-40 Payload Delivery System.
....
By 2045 Canada will be taking delivery of the last of its CSCs.
- Reaction score
- 2,170
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 17,232
- Points
- 1,010
I can dream.
Actually, I have no expectation we will ever build 15 CSC. I think technology will change too fast for that. However, we still should build 15 of “something” in a never ending cycle…
Last edited:
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,209
- Points
- 1,160
If you design your military for peacetime you'll be in dire straits when war comes knocking unexpectedly.
How do you get your shipbuilding industry to "pump them out as required" in wartime without priming them with designs and orders in peacetime?
I 100% agree that the RCN has many important peacetime roles and unmanned/minimally manned platforms aren't well suited to those roles so of course we need vessels like AOPS, Kingston's and CSCs. However if/when China decides to attack Taiwan (or some other unexpected crisis situation) we're not going to have years or even months to suddenly build a wartime fleet.
- Reaction score
- 2,170
- Points
- 1,160
The Battle of Taiwan will be over before the 
Parliament gets the lights back on and perhaps orders the lines to be cast off the docks in Esquimalt. It’s what comes after that that the RCN must be prepared for, since China will defend the remains of the island forever.
Parliament gets the lights back on and perhaps orders the lines to be cast off the docks in Esquimalt. It’s what comes after that that the RCN must be prepared for, since China will defend the remains of the island forever.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,946
- Points
- 1,210
I can see batch 2 being a little different from batch 1, and so on.
You look at the Cadillacs. St Laurent and Annapolis had the same hull form and engine plant but a lot different above the main deck.
and Russia will be in Kiev in 72 hours. It will be long and dirty.The Battle of Taiwan will be over before the
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,034
- Points
- 1,160
The Battle of Taiwan will start over one of the small islands beside the mainland, Taiwan will lose the initial fights, but it will give time for the US and Allies to react. I think even the CCP knows now that a amphibious attack on the Main Island will be a unmitigated failure of epic portions.The Battle of Taiwan will be over before the
- Reaction score
- 6,789
- Points
- 1,140
CSCs aren't designed for peacetime. They are designed for high end warfighting, while also being useful during peacetime.
Spending our limited budget on systems that only serve a purpose during a war is not a wise use of our budget. Bear in mind that navies and air forces serve a roll beyond training on a daily basis, unlike tanks or SPGs.
If a shipyard can make hulls, they can make a hull for a one or two use arsenal USV. If Canadian industry can make components for the army's GBAD systems, they can make components for missile launchers for USVs.
Again, I'm not anti-technology, I'm anti pie in the sky visions of the future that prevent pragmatic solutions from being developed.
- Reaction score
- 8,335
- Points
- 1,160
I'm just wondering where the time will come from to build new ships while the CSCs are being sunk.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,209
- Points
- 1,160
The ability to produce something isn't the issue...it's the ability to produce it in a timely manner when it's really needed.
You don't have to look any further than the Canadian Army (or most European militaries) to see what happens when you design your force around your peacetime requirements. When the SHTF you're scrambling.
There are many armies around the world that "serve a roll beyond training on a daily basis". You don't have to look far into our own past to find extended periods where our Army was deployed in operations other than war and making a contribution to Canada's political interests. The Navy and Air Force aren't unique in that.
And like the CSC's there are many pieces of Army kit that "are designed for high end warfighting" that also get important use in operations other than war.
That being said, my argument isn't against the fact that the Navy needs high-end warfighting ships that are also useful during peacetime or that the Navy doesn't also need an array of platforms that are not designed specifically for warfighting - like the AOPS and Kingston-Class - for the majority of the time we're not at war.
What I'm suggesting is that especially in deeply troubled times like we find ourselves in now - and with the long lead times required to procure modern military equipment - that we need to have the warfighting materials we need to fight a war available in advance rather than wait for a war to start before we move.
We all know that both money and personnel are in short supply so that's why I suggest that unmanned/minimally manned systems that require less of both are a good potential way forward for the Navy. The solution might be different for the Army - an expanded and well equipped Reserve in place of full-time forces for example.
Regardless of what path we take it's certain that we're going to have to pay a price for our capabilities. It can either be cash now or we can pay the price in blood when we're not prepared like the Allies in 1939-1940.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,034
- Points
- 1,160
Russia is in that predicament right now. They can't replace their losses for the foreseeable future. I argue that Canada might have almost the same warship building capability as Russia currently has.
- Reaction score
- 6,789
- Points
- 1,140
They will come from whatever yard can be converted to build appropriate ships at the time. Which is exactly why I think investing in our industrial capability is far better than spending money on fancy toys of dubious usefulness 99.9% of the time.
For a historical example of what happens, look to the WWII RN. They created emergency destroyers, corvettes and frigates to fill the gaps left by sunk ships. Those designs were less capable than pre-war designs, but could be made cheaper and faster. In the future, we will do the exact same thing. CSCs won't be replaced with CSCs when they sink, they will be replaced by a cheaper and easier to build ship that is "good enough".
Also, what do you think will be easier to build in large numbers come a war, CSCs or USV arsenal ships? Does it not make the most sense to build the best we can now, and save the "good enough" for when the shooting has started and losses are mounting?
Again, I'm not against the concept of USVs, for sensors and weapons. I'm against the idea that they will replace real warships, or that we should build them at the expense of real warships. Like UAVs in ground combat, they augment the soldiers rather than replace them.
