# Naval Long Range AAD option for CPF?



## Cloud Cover (21 Oct 2004)

The ESSM project for the CPF does not envision relocating the existing Mk 48 GMVLS, although it may be the launcher itself will change. [I don't know - Ex- D?] However, the ESSM is not a medium range fleet AAD weapon, which is a critical capability fulfilled by the 280's and the SM-2.   

There is a project underway in the US known as the PVLS [Peripheral Verticle Launch System] that is capable of launching a variety of missiles, including medium and long range AAD, among other weapons. 

A mock up of the system can be found at Global Security:   http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/pvls.htm      

Note the system weight at the time of the article was at 162 tons. The sea based system will weigh significantly less in it's production form.

Might this system be a viable option for the CPF? i.e. remove 1 of the 2 MK 48 GMVLS, and replace it with the PVLS on each frigate. 

This would give the CPF 32 ESSM in 8 tubes, and 16 PVLS tubes for MR AAD, plus 8 Harpoon. This would theoretically increase firepower, provide an interim solution to the AAD replacement, [admittedly without the command and control, or the necessary radars without APAR] 

Fire away...     ;D

* edit .. the PVLS can also launch the ESSM, but this would contitute an underutilization of the system's capabilities.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2004)

> The ESSM project for the CPF does not envision relocating the existing Mk 48 GMVLS, although it may be the launcher itself will change. [I don't know - Ex- D?]


As of right now no but some of the aspects of FELEX have been changed so the launcher may be one of them.

I like your idea whiskey, but without the flagship capability the CPF just becomes an overstaffed and thus ineffective frigate.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Oct 2004)

I don't know about overstaffed, there wouldn't be any extra pers. involved. [Can't we just work the NCI Ops harder? LOL]  Perhaps overarmed might be a better characterization without the requisite flagship to coordinate fleet wide AAD. Having the CPF armed with PVLS adds more punch, and conceivably gives the Navy more options if so equipped, note the weapons load listed here: http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/articles/ddx_janes_062403.pdf   

But you are quite correct, such a vessel would not be a substitute for for a flagship.

Cheers ..


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2004)

Not being Navy myself, I may be talking through my hat, but here goes:

With advanced communications systems able to supply lots of data in "real time", do we really need a "flagship" anymore? The US Navy's AEGIS class cruisers take information from all the members of the battlegroup to do airspace surveillance and plot weapons intercepts, in fact, I think they can even take over the air defense systems of other ships and fire their weapons too. While this is pretty extreme, the sort of capabilities designed and built in the 1980's can certainly be recreated today with lower costs and probably less equipment.

In theory, a Kingston class ship could then provide AAD coverage simply by mounting the communications suite and having an AAD team to run the system. Going the other way, instead of a billion dollar warship, container ships could carry a "package" containing a VL missile cell and electronics to communicate with the AAD team (this would only be installed during wartime on a convoy). This also means that warships could be supplemented to a certain extent by cheaper "arsenal" ships. As long as the Arsenal ship is in communications and weapons range, its firepower is available to the task force, but since it doesn't carry lots of electronics and sensors (the expensive parts), it is cheaper. Since it doesn't radiate a lot of electronic noise, it won't draw much attention to itself either.


----------



## Inch (28 Oct 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Not being Navy myself, I may be talking through my hat, but here goes:
> 
> With advanced communications systems able to supply lots of data in "real time", do we really need a "flagship" anymore? The US Navy's AEGIS class cruisers take information from all the members of the battlegroup to do airspace surveillance and plot weapons intercepts, in fact, I think they can even take over the air defense systems of other ships and fire their weapons too. While this is pretty extreme, the sort of capabilities designed and built in the 1980's can certainly be recreated today with lower costs and probably less equipment.



Where is the Admiral going to be? The ship he's on is the flag ship. As far as firing the other ship's weapons, to my knowledge that doesn't happen. Data link is used for sensors and firecontrol radars, not remote control. The new MH is going to have datalink, so when we drop the sonar into the water, the ship will see what we see, however, we can't fire their missiles nor can they fire our torpedoes. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> In theory, a Kingston class ship could then provide AAD coverage simply by mounting the communications suite and having an AAD team to run the system. Going the other way, instead of a billion dollar warship, container ships could carry a "package" containing a VL missile cell and electronics to communicate with the AAD team (this would only be installed during wartime on a convoy). This also means that warships could be supplemented to a certain extent by cheaper "arsenal" ships. As long as the Arsenal ship is in communications and weapons range, its firepower is available to the task force, but since it doesn't carry lots of electronics and sensors (the expensive parts), it is cheaper. Since it doesn't radiate a lot of electronic noise, it won't draw much attention to itself either.



A Kingston class isn't very effective on the open seas due to it's size, not to mention the fact that they only do 15 knots.  What happens if the ship with the sensors is sunk? Now you've got a ship with a whole lot of whoop ass on it that can't be fired since the ship is lacking the fire control systems. Easy strategy if you ask me, sink the ship with the antenae that you can see from miles away and you've eliminated the threat of retaliation. Or vice versa, you sink the "arsenal" ship and now you've got fire control systems but nothing to fire. Electronic noise isn't going to hide them from subs, subs find stuff with sonar and they'll just look for the noisiest ship and bang, no more missiles to fire.

Anyway, that's just my basic knowledge of it and I'm sure the navy types will jump in here any minute.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Oct 2004)

> With advanced communications systems able to supply lots of data in "real time", do we really need a "flagship" anymore? The US Navy's AEGIS class cruisers take information from all the members of the battlegroup to do airspace surveillance and plot weapons intercepts, in fact, I think they can even take over the air defense systems of other ships and fire their weapons too. While this is pretty extreme, the sort of capabilities designed and built in the 1980's can certainly be recreated today with lower costs and probably less equipment.


Even in real time I would want my command staff handy so they can better assess the situation. Having them command from Halifax while I am in the Gulf of Oman in the middle of something does not give them a true appreciation of the situation. Sure they can advise but the further away the less in touch you are. BTW pet peeve of mine Aegis is the system, they are Ticonderoga class cruisers. Yes they can take over another ship with a similar system but the other ship has to allow them to do so. I won't say anything else on it. Yes Aegis came about in the 80s and has been continuously updated.



> In theory, a Kingston class ship could then provide AAD coverage simply by mounting the communications suite and having an AAD team to run the system.


With what? Do you know how small an MCDV is? How are you going to ft a VLS of SM2s onboard an MCDV mot to mention the air defence radars, data link systems. The ship is far too small. Stingers or other MANPADs yes. Anything bigger, not!



> Going the other way, instead of a billion dollar warship, container ships could carry a "package" containing a VL missile cell and electronics to communicate with the AAD team (this would only be installed during wartime on a convoy).


Again as above. Sure you can put VLS on them yes what about your fire control, air search radars, data link. With that much electronic leakage from your now armed container ship plus the stores and supplies it is carrying it becomes and even more important target. Container ships are not built to withstand battle damage.

I won't discuss electronic noise and what we can or cannot see as that is approaching OPSEC.


----------



## Guardian (28 Oct 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In theory, a Kingston class ship could then provide AAD coverage simply by mounting the communications suite and having an AAD team to run the system. Going the other way, instead of a billion dollar warship, container ships could carry a "package" containing a VL missile cell and electronics to communicate with the AAD team (this would only be installed during wartime on a convoy). This also means that warships could be supplemented to a certain extent by cheaper "arsenal" ships. As long as the Arsenal ship is in communications and weapons range, its firepower is available to the task force, but since it doesn't carry lots of electronics and sensors (the expensive parts), it is cheaper. Since it doesn't radiate a lot of electronic noise, it won't draw much attention to itself either.



Disclaimer - I know little about maritime affairs... I'm just thinking about capabilities here. Feel free to cut my opinion apart   :warstory:

I like a_majoor's concept here, though the MCDV hull and the container ship are not the best platforms. Here's another idea:

1. Come up with a common vessel platform for most surface combatants in the Navy (maybe even the Coast Guard, too - and perhaps sell on the open market...) This vessel would have a double hull, mil-spec sensor, comms, and damage control systems, and a helo hangar and deck. The rest of the ship's space would be configured to accept a series of mission modules for weapons, sensors, and stores. The vessel would start at around 5000 tonnes, and be build for low cost, speed and stability.

2. Possible module configurations:

Anti-submarine - active/passive sonar mounts, torpedoes, ASW helicopter eqpt
Anti-shipping - Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, radar mounts, 5 inch gun
Hospital ship - 100-bed surgical hospital, medical stores, big red cross
Amphibious operations support - carry a light infantry company, small boats / RHIBs, ammunition and stores, 5-inch gun for NGS
Supply ship - plug in big fuel containers (it's a double-hulled ship, and so would meet Transport Canada standards)
Mine warfare - sonar suites, diving support equipment and decompression chamber, helo eqpt
Anti-air defence - Aegis radar suite, vertical-launch missile suite, communications

3. Link them all into a common integrated battlespace management system that can command and control any vessel appropriate to respond to a threat.

This, if it could work, might make for a less expensive and more flexible Navy. And ships on Fish Patrols wouldn't have to take a warfighting suite with them - saving a lot of sailors and equipment.....

All right, let me have it   :blotto:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Oct 2004)

> 1. Come up with a common vessel platform for most surface combatants in the Navy (maybe even the Coast Guard, too - and perhaps sell on the open market...)


Already in the works this next generation of ship will replace both the CPF and the 280s.
Whenever a ship class is put in the water other buyers are also sought.



> [2. Possible module configurations:
> Anti-submarine - active/passive sonar mounts, torpedoes, ASW helicopter eqpt
> Anti-shipping - Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, radar mounts, 5 inch gun
> Hospital ship - 100-bed surgical hospital, medical stores, big red cross
> ...


Just some points on your modules...
Anti shipping....while a Tomahawk is nice the preferred role is seemingly land attack. As for 5 inch while nice to have I would want smaller.
Mine warfare....at 5000 tons you would not be able to do that much in inshore clearance ops and using divers for that aspect might prove too time consuming.
Supply ship..... a 5000 ton AOR will not keep a naval TG adequately supplied so that means more frequent runs to a port for replenishment. Fuel bladders that big to plug in would require extensive hull modifications and besides you are much better off having a dedicated AOR.
Amphib support....RHIBs are standard anyways, but you might want to think about dedicated landing craft and putting an actual well for LCACs would basically cancel out your modular versatility. 
Hospital, mine warfare, supply and amphib should be a dedicated platforms. The AAW, ASuW and ASW units could be made into modular units but in all reality for warfare it is still best if a ship can do all 3 vice only one.



> 3. Link them all into a common integrated battlespace management system that can command and control any vessel appropriate to respond to a threat.


We do that now.



> This, if it could work, might make for a less expensive and more flexible Navy. And ships on Fish Patrols wouldn't have to take a warfighting suite with them - saving a lot of sailors and equipment.....


And in the event that unit on Fisheries must be deployed? It would have to head back to Halifax get is equipment refitted, its crew re embarked and have everything tested and trialled to make sure all works well.

Also what would be standard radars, sonars, not to mention armament?


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Oct 2004)

Putting all of the eggs into one basket magnifies the impact of the loss when the ship goes into refit, or worse still, gets taken out of action or sunk by the enemy. And, there are lots of unfriendly countries out there who would/ are quite capable of doing just that. I am not a big fan of the single hull concept for the 280/330 replacement. I think we need bigger destroyers and smaller firgates, both more lethally armed. Reason: "presence" in the proposed battlespace. A heavily armed 8000-10000 ton destroyer with 2 multi-purpose helicopters delivers a more powerful message at sea and over the coast than a 5000 ton mixed bag. Similarly, a 3000 ton helo equipped ASW frigate is a submarine's worst nightmare, next to another submarine. A 5000 ton ship that takes a slot in a coalition fleet, and can only defend itself and nothing else, and can't command anything, can be a bit of a burden at times seems to be an inefficient use of tonnage. 

If the weapons fit of the CPF remains the same, i.e. ESSM, 57mm, CIWS, torpedoes, then none of the vulnerabilities of the ship are addressed, the capability gap remains in place, and perhaps widens as the 280's age and the single hull concept [and related debate] drags on.     

As far as putting missiles on the JSS, that has been discussed somwhere here before. Other than BPMDS, [if that], the idea is too dangerous. Caveat- the LPD-17 may carry SLAM and SM-2, but that ship has no AOR functions at all. If our tanker role was outsourced to a fleet auxillary organization, we might start to think along those lines.

Ditto Ex-D on radar signatures ... we don't go there other than in very general terms. Eve if you are not in the Navy any more, the SIA still applies.   Use of open source literature in a forum like this simply helps to confirm what otherwise might be suspected.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2004)

Now for my inanities....

The Navy builds a structure, fills is with all sorts of capabilities, puts everyone within reach of the coffee pot and then tries to defend it. 

In land terms we would call that a fortress and if I'm not mistaken the last time that anyone thought it was a good idea there was when the Germans assaulted and captured Fort Eben Emael in Belgium and bypassed the Maginot line in France.

The army puts its capabilities on various platforms, disperses them around the battlefield, has them constantly running around the battlefield, builds in redundancies and relies on communications to make it all happen.

Now while the navy can't put the entire crew of a DDH to sea in 150 RHIBs is it really so off the wall to talk about greater dispersal of capabilities and reliance on communications?

Back to my coffee....


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2004)

That was sort of what I was thinking, but exploring etreme cases like "Kingston" class hulls for Command and Control, arsenal ships and remote self defense packages bolted on container ships in wartime help illustrate a point and show how far we can really go with this idea.

This is an interesting "cost/benifit" analysis. Do we disperse with a lot of small platforms (say 3000t), each one with a single "package" (ASW, AAD, surface warfare, Mine counter measures and UACV "carrier") integrated with some sort of wide area network so the sensors, weapons and commanders are tied together for overlapping coverage, or do we go for bigger, more capable ships and accept they will have different limitations and vulnerabilities? With our defense budget, I believe we must think along these lines, since we are more likely to get a single hull built on an assembly line basis than a "balanced fleet" with several classes of ships.


----------



## DJL (28 Oct 2004)

> That was sort of what I was thinking, but exploring etreme cases like "Kingston" class hulls for Command and Control, arsenal ships and remote self defense packages bolted on container ships in wartime help illustrate a point and show how far we can really go with this idea.
> 
> This is an interesting "cost/benifit" analysis. Do we disperse with a lot of small platforms (say 3000t), each one with a single "package" (ASW, AAD, surface warfare, Mine counter measures and UACV "carrier") integrated with some sort of wide area network so the sensors, weapons and commanders are tied together for overlapping coverage, or do we go for bigger, more capable ships and accept they will have different limitations and vulnerabilities? With our defense budget, I believe we must think along these lines, since we are more likely to get a single hull built on an assembly line basis than a "balanced fleet" with several classes of ships.



I would agree with you if we didn't want to partake in expeditionary opps. Smaller hulls means less volume, less volume equals less fuel/food/beer/Ammo/spares etc.

Also, "what if" in this task group (of smaller ships) the one(s) carrying the ASW package were sunk, or even suffered a mechanical fault?

Another case against smaller ships, is that they are small.......in that the future growth potentail is limited.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Oct 2004)

A question here from the Navy guys ... are you advocating a system of systems approach to Naval operations, ala LAV platforms?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2004)

*Sigh* All I will say is have fun guys I will bow out now and let you play "lets pretend"


----------



## hugh19 (29 Oct 2004)

Ex-D don't tell me your tired of arguing with people who know nothing and refuse to listen to people who do?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2004)

Yes, whiskey 601, I was thinking along the "system of system" lines. I freely admit I know little about the Navy, besides the double breasted DEU jacket and some basic facts on how many ships we have and what they are "supposed" to do, so if these posts sound like they are from left field, then it is true, they are. In my case I am hoping to understand a bit more since the Navy will be a big part of the "Joint Expeditionary Force" package, delivering the troops and equipment, supplying an air defense umbrella and some surface support, and Command and Control at least until the troops are ashore and driving inland.

From what I understand, some of these capabilities require "big" platforms. Supply ships, tankers and the troop transports are easy enough to understand. The fighting ships are more difficult. Like Kirkhill says, a warship seems a bit like a fortress to Army eyes. We prefer to disperse (hide in the bushes, if you like) and annoy people by shooting at them when they can't see us to shoot back. The bad guys like to return the favor. This is obviously not very possible at sea, unless you are in a submarine.

To us, the solution would seem "obvious" disperse everything in multiple small platforms which are interoperable, so if one gets taken out of the fight for any reason, you don't loose a large % of your fighting power. The other thing which drives our thinking is that old bugbear: money, money, money. Do you think the Canadian government would ever consider getting in with the DD-X program and purchasing five or six of those beasts as part of the bigger American program (much less starting a similar program to develop a "home grown" platform with similar capabilities)? Smaller and cheaper will probably be the order of the day, so someone needs to think about how the job(s) can be done under those conditions.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2004)

One of the things we are both forgetting about a_majoor, and my crime is probably the greatest because I have been at sea, even though it is just for limited periods.  I have been in a 600 foot, 18,000 tonne vessel - similar in size to one of the Navy's Replenishment ships, in 300 foot 3500 tonne vessels and in a 150 foot 700tonne vessel.  It was my dubious pleasure to enjoy seeing sea-state 4 from the inside of both the 600 footer (for 3 days) and the 150 footer (for 6 hours).  Frankly I preferred the view from the 600 footer even though it was for three days.

For the Navy size does matter.

If you want speed, you need a long boat.  If you want endurance (fuel and supplies) you need a big boat.  If you want stability (a level platform from which you can operate a helicopter or fire a gun) you need a big boat.   That stability also means that the crew doesn't get fatigued going about there duties during 6 months at sea.  It takes work just to stay in your bunk between shifts and it takes more work just to sit, forget about walking to the galley or standing watch on a bridge deck that is swinging through a 40 foot arc.

If you want speed and stability along with the endurance then you are going to end up punching a pretty big hole in the ocean and that requires a lot of energy, which means fuel which in turn means a bigger ship and a bigger hole in the ocean.  And the ability to punch a big hole costs money.

Now, once you have your speedy, stable platform that can stay at sea for 6 months, and it has cost you a few hundred million dollars to get it there and man it the next question is what are you going to do with it.

If you put any single high value capability in the vessel, you immediately make it a target.  So that target has to be defended.  The vessel will be lucky if it can run away from the threat at 25 miles per hour and there are no convenient trees, rocks or gullies to duck behind.  Much like the old "pipe clay" soldiers it just has to stand there and take it while it is being defended.  No it could be defended in the way we discussed.  A lot of vessels circling her like frigates round a carrier, but each vessel represents another expensive hole in the ocean and for the vessels to be able to effectively operate weapons they need to be reasonably sized holes.  That would add up to fair bit of cash.

Alternatively you can try to build one floating super-fortress and try to defend it, but it seems to me, as it probably does to you, equivalent to sending one tank out into the field unsupported.  Not a very attractive proposition.

So I am guessing the Navy ends up trying to balance the number of holes in the ocean with the size of the holes.  Once they have decided on that and figured out how to defend said holes then it is a case of how much and what type of offensive capabilities can you supply within the space available.

Another design criterion they are inclined to take into consideration, I'm sure, is that if the vessel starts to burn, they can't bale out and walk home.

This is just to say we are both wrong to forget that the Navy works under very different pressures than the Army does.

Cheers.


----------



## Guardian (29 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> For the Navy size does matter.
> 
> If you want speed, you need a long boat. If you want endurance (fuel and supplies) you need a big boat. If you want stability (a level platform from which you can operate a helicopter or fire a gun) you need a big boat. That stability also means that the crew doesn't get fatigued going about there duties during 6 months at sea. It takes work just to stay in your bunk between shifts and it takes more work just to sit, forget about walking to the galley or standing watch on a bridge deck that is swinging through a 40 foot arc.
> 
> If you want speed and stability along with the endurance then you are going to end up punching a pretty big hole in the ocean and that requires a lot of energy, which means fuel which in turn means a bigger ship and a bigger hole in the ocean. And the ability to punch a big hole costs money.



Put that way, Kirkhill, I see the point. 

Getting back to the AAD topic, has the CF done anything to integrate the airspace picture between the Air Force, Navy, and Army? Is there a means or network currently in use / development which could tie the three services together to fight on the same place (ie. Navy picks up incoming aircraft, hands it over to Army ADATS / MMEV for destruction)?

We certainly don't do a lot of joint training... except for occasional exercises like the one up North a while ago involving the RCR and HMCS Montreal...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2004)

The navy does a lot with NORAD so take it from there.

I can see the Navy handing control of a contact to the Air Force which we have done to engage and I see no reason why we could not do the same with the army, but when we have our own air defence assets the only scenarios I can see it being used it if we miss or targets so far out of range of our SM2s. The ones best situated to take a contact will do so.

BTW well said Kirkhill, this is why I have been stressing the importantance of multirole combatants vice single role modular ships as has been illustrated in previous posts.


----------



## JBP (29 Oct 2004)

By the way folks, your right about not having 1 single giant super fortress ship. Those aren't used anymore because they would get SMOKED in modern naval combat. It was called a battleship. They were used mostly for close range naval combat and shore bombardment. Both those roles have been filled now by destroyers and cruisers. It is expected that most naval battles will be fought with each fleet (yours+enemy) being at least several dozen miles away, if not even a hundred or couple hundred. Cruise missles, aircraft, fast ships. I think the destroyers we have are great but could use upgrades etc... 

Although I am certainly NOT any expert on the military in any fashion, it does seem to make sense to disperse your abilities so one hit won't hurt if you loose a ship or two. BUT, we are in Canada, we have a pretty TINY budget, and won't be getting multiple ship platforms as you've all discussed. So, don't worry about it! The great and wonderful magician politicians will save us! Heck, they've kept everything great so far right?  :

Really think hard when voting time comes up next folks.

All I'll say is I certainly didn't vote Liberal, for more than 1 reason!!!
 ;D

PS> What I'm trying to say is it's not our fault, your fault, or DND's fault mainly. It's those crooney weirdo's up in parliament waving magic wants and making magic like "I want a new 5'000 strong /peacekeeping/ force ready to be deployed as soon as possible so I may announce this to the UN as I promised!"..... Hmmm.... We'll need some of that magic green stuff, like.. MONEY... First off. 

I'll shut up now, as I've been told to do here before, and I agreed it was wise then


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2004)

> I think the destroyers we have are great but could use upgrades etc...


No they need to be replaced, they are well past needing replacement. I would not say great, adequate for AAD and very good for flagship duties.


----------



## DJL (29 Oct 2004)

First off, Well said Kirkhill.



> If you want speed and stability along with the endurance then you are going to end up punching a pretty big hole in the ocean and that requires a lot of energy, which means fuel which in turn means a bigger ship and a bigger hole in the ocean.  And the ability to punch a big hole costs money.



Remember though, steel is cheap and air is free......The costs of a modern warship is better reflected by what you "put in it" then the dimensions and volume.


----------

