Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

As I understand it, there will never, ever again be a production run of Cyclones. So more spaces for helo’s might mean a different, even more unique orphan bird fleet, which is not even funny.

Used NH90's are trying to enter chat.

 

[DBNSG]

It also seems to me that we have far too few helo's to go around in the first place to put 2 on a ship.

Well perhaps when the Adults take office and NATO twists a little more we can buy 20 SH-60R's for the Seahawk Pond known as the Pacific and keep the CH-148's in the Atlantic?

 

[Baz]

It is a bit of a pain in the ass to swap them around, but we don’t traverse the helos the same way that we did with the Sea King, so not impossible.

It also seems to me that we have far too few helo's to go around in the first place to put 2 on a ship.

The number of helos we bought, like the number of ships, is that which is need to (roughly) support two CTGs (on a rotation) plus a single deployer (on a rotation), plus training, plus maintenance, with no attrition spares.

If you're in a CTG, you don't need two helos on a ship. A CTG was planned to have 6 helos embarked to keep two airborne continuously.

If you are a single deployer, it might be useful, but you'd wouldn't be able to have a single deployer with two helos and a "full" CTG at the same time.

There are three cases where you might be using two helos:

• Both at the same time. This would be doable as you would launch one, then pull the other one and launch it. The hot refuels would be staggered just like they were on the 280s. The first one landed would be stuffed forward, and then the other one put in the normal barn. You'd need plussed up crews (there were four on the 280s), plus maintenance (there was enough for a 16-18 hour cycle, ie two shifts).
• Swap for maintenance. That would be easy as well. When you wanted to swap them you'd plan a half and half cycle with both helicopters. At the halfway point you'd already have the second in the barn, pull it and launch, land the first for the day and put it in the barn, move it forward before the other one landed. This would give you a bit more flexibility in scheduling maintenance, but without plussing up pers you wouldn't really get much benefit. You could swap them by pulling them onto the deck if one went down. You'd need a mule, but there are actually better ones around now than the tankers had (no towbar, smaller; see Towflexx Military; we're researching one of these for the museum).
• Swap if one aircraft goes down during the launch cycle. This is when it is a pain because you want to do it as fast as possible. Definitely need a mule, as you need to push one to the side, pull the other, push the broken one, center the second one. Not sure it is worth it to recover one mission, unless you're about to get sunk by a sub (but then you'd probably take a broken helo anyway).

I'd embark a small mule, extra pers, and plan to fly both at the same time to make it worthwhile...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

But the six helos CTG was premised on having a 280 and an AOR in the group, each carrying two helos. To get the same now, you'd have to deploy either six frigates as part of the CTG, or four frigates and put two on Asterix or on the canmod Berlin.

 

[Baz]

But the six helos CTG was premised on having a 280 and an AOR in the group, each carrying two helos. To get the same now, you'd have to deploy either six frigates as part of the CTG, or four frigates and put two on Asterix or on the canmod Berlin.

Yep… and I’m not sure that we know the availability of the Cyclone enough yet to validate that number.

Nor am I sure that two airborne all the time is the right answer either.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Feeds from the current VLS could be routed to there as well.

And I suspect that the MMB’s projected inhabitants would already demand folks on watch.

I thought this was the JSS hangar?

 

[KevinB]

I thought this was the JSS hangar?

Oh I thought it was the MMB on the HMS Glasgow as a representative picture of the CSC area.

 

[Furniture]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that CSC is not supposed to be a specific UAV/missile swarm combatant....

Specializing it for that role makes it suck for the jobs it will actually do.

If the RCN needs a dedicated AAW platform, build/buy one. Don't try to turn our GP ships into specialized platforms that will never be used for the role people here envision.

 

[Lumber]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that CSC is not supposed to be a specific UAV/missile swarm combatant....

Specializing it for that role makes it suck for the jobs it will actually do.

If the RCN needs a dedicated AAW platform, build/buy one. Don't try to turn our GP ships into specialized platforms that will never be used for the role people here envision.

RCN warships haven't been used "for the role people here envision" since Korea.

 

[Underway]

It is really big.

It is really big.

You can fit a merlin in there, it was going to be the size of a hangar. But seeing it... wow.

 

[Underway]

All I see here is enough room for two additional 24 cell Mk41 VLSs, one on each side, and enough room between them for a second helo.

Ask for something and let the engineers tell you where it can fit... There are other critical design constraints that need to be accounted for. Like tonage, and in particular upper deck space (as electronics are much more important than missiles), power and their relationship to speed.

Also those things push into other warfare aspects like ASW. Which of course we've all completely forgotten about in our rush complain about "the next big threat". That big space is gonna be critical in that warfare type going forward.

 

[Underway]

Quite right Lumber. But I have yet to hear, from anyone who would know, how practical two helos one in front of the other would be, as compared to the two helos side by side like we had on the IRO's.

Given the massive size of the flight deck it might work with some driveway jiggery (wife needs to take the truck but its in front of the car). I honestly do not think that we would ever take two helo's. A uav probably though.

 

[Underway]

I thought this was the JSS hangar?

Nope, the picture is the multi mission bay for HMS Glasgow. I can see why one would think it was JSS hangar, though JSS hangar is larger then this.

 

[GR66]

Ask for something and let the engineers tell you where it can fit... There are other critical design constraints that need to be accounted for. Like tonage, and in particular upper deck space (as electronics are much more important than missiles), power and their relationship to speed.

Also those things push into other warfare aspects like ASW. Which of course we've all completely forgotten about in our rush complain about "the next big threat". That big space is gonna be critical in that warfare type going forward.

I agree that even in a potential conflict against China ASW will be a (the?) primary role for the RCN. A key objective for China in a war will be to keep US (and allied) forces as far away from Taiwan as possible and if possible to prevent shipments of key American materiel from reaching the war zone. Our CSC's would play a very important role in keeping Chinese subs away from US assets.

Yes there will also be missile attacks on Western forces but the USN has ships specifically designed to counter those attacks. If we feel that we need to up our AAW capability then as @Furniture says we should get a dedicated AAW warship (highly unlikely due to money/personnel constraints) or look at other ways of increasing our missile capacity - most likely through minimally/unmanned arsenal ships - rather than tinkering with the CSC design.

$0.02

 

[Underway]

I agree that even in a potential conflict against China ASW will be a (the?) primary role for the RCN. A key objective for China in a war will be to keep US (and allied) forces as far away from Taiwan as possible and if possible to prevent shipments of key American materiel from reaching the war zone. Our CSC's would play a very important role in keeping Chinese subs away from US assets.

Yes there will also be missile attacks on Western forces but the USN has ships specifically designed to counter those attacks. If we feel that we need to up our AAW capability then as @Furniture says we should get a dedicated AAW warship (highly unlikely due to money/personnel constraints) or look at other ways of increasing our missile capacity - most likely through minimally/unmanned arsenal ships - rather than tinkering with the CSC design.

$0.02

Here's the thing. We can all talk about AAW. Its easy, its public and its flashy and exciting. ASW is secret, boring, slow time. So we're gonna spend no time talking about it.

Just like we talk about kinetic AAW, and not Electronic AAW. Electronic is far more important than kinetic. Like 50 times more important. If someone said we should add more EW equipment to CSC into the space of the Multi Mission bay that would be far more effective than adding 50 more missiles.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yep! I keep telling my civilian friends that these days, anti-air is done through a protective electronic bubble and the kinetic weapons are just your last line.

As for ASW, I don't see how the flex deck is going to help unless we want to use specialized UAV's for it. But of course, such UAV's for underwater warfare would only be useful if they can somehow keep up with the main body the same way as the escort force. They wouldn't be very useful, for instance in a "sprint and drift" type of escort work. They would however be useful to use in a barrier or area sanitizing role.

 

[Underway]

As for ASW, I don't see how the flex deck is going to help unless we want to use specialized UAV's for it. But of course, such UAV's for underwater warfare would only be useful if they can somehow keep up with the main body the same way as the escort force. They wouldn't be very useful, for instance in a "sprint and drift" type of escort work. They would however be useful to use in a barrier or area sanitizing role.

There are few things I look at. First is modern networked sonobuoys. There are a few launch options which might work in the mission bay. Certainly bolt on processing or storage are possible.

The secondly and not quite proven tech yet but possibly more important... Anti Torpedo Torpedos. Processing, launch platform etc...

Third is like you stated UUV or USV. Launch and recovery along routes.

Fourth is UUV/USV modern decoys.

I think there are some other ideas in the hopper but that's what my Sat morning brain remembered.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quite so Underway.

Last night, I was watching a show called Hunt for the Lost Superfleet on Smithsonian. It is basically a show about the archeological search for Von Spee's Squadron's ships that were lost in the WW1 battle of the Falklands. For anyone not versed in naval matters, the way they go looking for the ships and the type of equipment they use (some of it made in Canada BTW - I recognized the type and brand) is a good primer on how we would do mine hunting these days with autonomous systems reporting to a mother ship.

As discussed above by Underway and I, it could also be a window into future ASW. An UUV with good AI programming that would travel near the surface and stream a tail, then pop up an antenna to report to its frigate when it "hears" something would give the frigate multiple tails from which to triangulate, making it possible for the helo to pin down and strike at the submarine that more faster and easily with a much lower consumption level for expendables like sonobuoys.

 

[GR66]

Quite so Underway.

Last night, I was watching a show called Hunt for the Lost Superfleet on Smithsonian. It is basically a show about the archeological search for Von Spee's Squadron's ships that were lost in the WW1 battle of the Falklands. For anyone not versed in naval matters, the way they go looking for the ships and the type of equipment they use (some of it made in Canada BTW - I recognized the type and brand) is a good primer on how we would do mine hunting these days with autonomous systems reporting to a mother ship.

As discussed above by Underway and I, it could also be a window into future ASW. An UUV with good AI programming that would travel near the surface and stream a tail, then pop up an antenna to report to its frigate when it "hears" something would give the frigate multiple tails from which to triangulate, making it possible for the helo to pin down and strike at the submarine that more faster and easily with a much lower consumption level for expendables like sonobuoys.

You could potentially use the AOPS as a mother ship for a series of these UUVs and create a picket line of sensors along the flanks of proposed convoy routes or along suspected infiltration routes for enemy submarines.

Combine those with a Fire Scout equipped with sonobouys and a lightweight torpedo and you'd have the capability to engage any targets detected.

Northrop Grumman Pitching Fire Scout Helicopter Drone for ASW Missions - USNI News

Late last year Northrop Grumman took its unmanned helicopter, which is designed to keep an eye on the ocean’s surface, for a test to look deeper under the water, company officials recently told USNI News. In a Navy-sanctioned internal research and development test in late October, Northrop slung...

news.usni.org

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't know that I would want the AOPS going anywhere if there was a shooting war. I don't think they have any noise reduction measures incorporated into the ship's design and that becomes an open invitation for submarine, especially considering their extremely limited armament, that contains no AS weapons (though I suppose this would change during a war).

P.S. Nice of you to suggest a system built in Mirabel, Qc - even if it is highly modified by Northrop Grumman thereafter to turn it into a Fire Scout. I see what you did there.