Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Uzlu]

Under the CSC evaluation framework, bidders were incentivised to submit a value proposition that would maximise Canadian participation in CSC design-phase engineering/ integration services, and also seek to incorporate high-technology Canadian systems and equipment into the ships. Lockheed Martin Canada's value proposition commits to performing at least 58 per cent of the design phase engineering/integration services work in Canada.

https://www.janes.com/article/88853/full-steam-ahead-cs19d1

 

[NavyShooter]

A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.

I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?

 

[Underway]

A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.

I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.

Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.

One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.

Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?

If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.

One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.

If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.

With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?

 

[Underway]

With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?

Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.

The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?

The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.

 

[NavyShooter]

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.

"ZIPPO  4 BASED ON CERANO"


There is nothing new under the sun...even with the upgraded CMS, automatic reconfiguration of the system based on the threat is still a thing.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.

The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?

The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.

That’s really interesting stuff. I guess as a layman, I just assumed there was a rigid doctrine regarding inbound threat management. I always thought it would be something like: if threat X was detected at point Y (being earliest possibility of intercept) then weapon system with furthest range (ESSM in a CPF) was almost an automatic reaction. Then if/as contact closes you would use progressively closer envelope systems (57mm, then CIWS, then cutlery thrown from bridge wing etc). But from what you’ve written here, it seems that every engagement bears scrutiny and the response has to be fluid. It makes sense being the real world, but I was always under the impression that responses were hard and fast to avoid confusion at a time critical point. My hat is off to whoever has the cool head and grace under pressure to deal with that.

Thanks for the complete way you responded as well. These threads go a long way to put into context how complex life can be in the RCN.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.

Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM. 

The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.

I know it’s unlikely, but I’d prefer the secondary cannon to be the 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun. That would be exceptional coverage for many different threats.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun would seem to be a good fit across the fleet, the CSC,AOS and MCDV's

 

[calculus]

And interestingly, there was one on display at CANSEC today.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

An article on the UK Sea-Ceptor missile system to be fitted to their Type 26's

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/from-sea-wolf-to-sea-ceptor-the-royal-navys-defensive-shield/?fbclid=IwAR1JYO6Rmq8cQhLdjzIXsFiOmbXtWl7WWBgfk6RmYGyHk7UDch-Lm-J3L7U

 

[Underway]

An article on the UK Sea-Ceptor missile system to be fitted to their Type 26's

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/from-sea-wolf-to-sea-ceptor-the-royal-navys-defensive-shield/?fbclid=IwAR1JYO6Rmq8cQhLdjzIXsFiOmbXtWl7WWBgfk6RmYGyHk7UDch-Lm-J3L7U

Few things that stand out to me:

-salvo of missiles at multiple separate targets, designed to deal with saturation attacks
-Soft Vertical Launch allows for lower turnover arch (epogee) and thus improves the minimum intercept range
-Sea Ceptor international users group with NZ, UK, Chile and Brazil, now possibly Canada (we love the user groups)

 

[Underway]

Video from BAE exhibit at CANSEC 2019.

Takeaways - 32 ships globally creates a powerful user group
-our ships will have AAW capabilities on top of ASW capabilities that come with the original ship design
-no difference in the ships, all purpose frigates, so there is no direct 280 replacement
-apparently the RCN has exacting standards... who knew  rly:

 

[Uzlu]

apparently the RCN has exacting standards... who knew  rly:

From Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1947-1982 Part I: The Western Powers:

In the notes for the St. Laurent class destroyer escorts, it says: “The British Whitby design was still on the drawing-board, and as the USN had nothing which met the exacting RCN Staff Requirement it was decided to design a new class of ship in Canada.”

In the notes for the Iroquois class helicopter destroyers, it says: “The design allowed for two big helicopters (CHSS-2) to enhance their ASW capabilities, and they are still among the best equipped escorts in the world.”

 

[Spencer100]

Canadian Press Update

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-will-shell-out-almost-dollar70-billion-for-its-new-warships-pbo-report-says/ar-AADe2i1?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Stoker]

Canadian Press Update

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-will-shell-out-almost-dollar70-billion-for-its-new-warships-pbo-report-says/ar-AADe2i1?ocid=spartanntp

A longer article and more information.

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/06/21/canadian-surface-combatant-pbo-updated-estimate/?fbclid=IwAR1TCq9xj1w1CR5ATJlpp1cJzONbtdHm4Muq4D3dwuVSTI2G1iqHAeHivQ0

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus from Murray Brewster, CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliamentary-budget-office-pbo-frigate-1.5185124

PBO report here:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2019/Canada-Surface-Combatants-update/CSC_Update_2019_Report_E.pdf

No way current timetable can be met, cost will go up even further.  PBO assumes "Construction begins in FY 2023-2024" (p.8 PDF). But delivery of 6th A/OPS for Navy now set for 2024 (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defenceA/OPS/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html) and two more now have to be made for Coast Guard so...CSCs start maybe 2027? With great luck.

Gov't says ("4. Implementation") for CSC: "First delivery: Mid 2020s" Would 2027 count? https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html

This other gov't webpage recently said: "2026/2027 Initial Delivery" for RCN CSC: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1710

PBO on delays (p. 18 PDF), right click below:

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

Really they have to just dig in and get this done. Enough frigging around.

 

[JMCanada]

Just compare with the USN FFG(X) programme in terms of costs and schedule by using actually existing platforms (let's admit that the type 26 has enhanced capabilities, but ...so much?) :
"We started closer to the $950 (million); we are trending to very close to the $800 now."
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/20/navy-issues-final-rfp-for-ffgx-next-generation-frigate#more-67364