# Adaptable Strike Frigate



## OceanBonfire (18 Oct 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582331964597542912

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582339736105951232

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582416292904316928





						Adaptable Strike Frigate
					






					www.baesystems.com


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Oct 2022)

Be interesting.  This most likely will be the basis of BAE's T-32 entry.  Think BAE got the message the MoD was sending when Badcock got the T-31? 

Problem now is you have the Badcock frigate factory open after the 5 T-31 and one foreign build what comes next? Badcock will need work.  But BAE looks to like they are to get the T-83 after the T-26 build.   So the T32 to BAE would be stretch.  

Then the big elephant in the room...Scotland.  If a new vote is held and it goes to leave, all bets are off.


----------



## MTShaw (20 Oct 2022)

I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW. 

Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that. 

@Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Oct 2022)

MTShaw said:


> I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW.
> 
> Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that.
> 
> @Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.


Babcock.

Oh crap.....spelling is not my superpower

I won't edit.....so people can have a chuckle at it and me


----------



## Rainbow1910 (20 Oct 2022)

MTShaw said:


> I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW.
> 
> Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that.
> 
> @Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.


Davie is likely going to be kept busy with their current polar icebreaker and smaller icebreaker programs for the Coast Guard into the mid to late 2030's, assuming they aren't given anything else on top of what is planned currently. I have some extensive doubts about any additional corvettes, frigates, etc being built for the RCN that overlap with the mission of the CSC. A large point of the CSC program was to provide the Navy with a single class which can do all of the roles required of current frigates and decommissioned destroyers, simplifying logistics and training across the force. Having another frigate program undermines CSC and potentially puts it into jeopardy. Lets get CSC going along before we already start considering less capable options that aren't even off the drawing board yet.  

If CSC manages to fall through, sure lets look at other options at that point.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Oct 2022)

The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.

The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.

When the HAL's came about , again supposedly as a single class, we still had the IRO's - so no single class. Again, by accident (because of the replacement delays of CSC and "early" retirement of the IRO's, we had a short period of single class. But now, with the AOPS and frigates, we are back to more than one class. Who knows when the last AOPS or HAL will be retired as the 15 CSC's come on line, but towards the end, there may be a short time with single class again - but that would be because the next gen frigate to replace the first CSC's or the AOPS replacements have been delayed.

Again: Single class is a nice concept, but unless you want to be married to a design in perpetuity, it doesn't pan out in practice.


----------



## Rainbow1910 (22 Oct 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.
> 
> The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.
> 
> ...


I think you are misconstruing my point. I am saying we should be procuring one class of main combatants at a time if possible, not that the navy should have one class of ships for everything. I don't count AOPS or Kingston in this as I am talking about frigates/destroyers. CSC specifically did not go for a split class of air warfare and anti-submarine warfare vessels in order to consolidate resources and make the entire operational process easier. The Navy happening to operate other vessels like AOPS and Kingston has no relevance to planning for a single class of main surface combatants.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Be interesting.  This most likely will be the basis of BAE's T-32 entry.  Think BAE got the message the MoD was sending when Badcock got the T-31?
> 
> Problem now is you have the Badcock frigate factory open after the 5 T-31 and one foreign build what comes next? Badcock will need work.  But BAE looks to like they are to get the T-83 after the T-26 build.   So the T32 to BAE would be stretch.
> 
> Then the big elephant in the room...Scotland.  If a new vote is held and it goes to leave, all bets are off.



But the T31 Arrowhead 130 is also being built in Polish and Indonesian yards for their home navies.

If Scotland were daft enough to leave the Union - and I don't put it past them - London could find other places to build a navy.


----------



## torg003 (23 Oct 2022)

Scotland could join Canada and build ships for our navy.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2022)

torg003 said:


> Scotland could join Canada and build ships for our navy.



I wouldn't have them.  I'd sooner we build shipyards in the Turks and Caicos.


----------



## torg003 (23 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I wouldn't have them.  I'd sooner we build shipyards in the Turks and Caicos.


Good idea!  Let's ask the Turks and Caicos to join Canada (I remember that being briefly discussed in Parliament during the '70s).  While we're at it, give all British Carribean colonies the opportunity to join as well (maybe even ask the French ones as well).


----------



## Underway (30 Oct 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.
> 
> The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.
> 
> ...


I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).

The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun.  Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.

I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology.  Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Oct 2022)

Actually, the "single class" argument has never been about the weapons systems or combat suite, but about the general compartments arrangements and the engineering plants.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Oct 2022)

By the time we get around to building ship #13 it better be different than number 1 at the pace we are going


----------



## Swampbuggy (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).
> 
> The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun.  Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.
> 
> I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology.  Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.


When you say “second block” is that understood to be ships 4-6 or do we feel like that may come later in the stream?


----------



## FSTO (31 Oct 2022)

Underway said:


> I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).
> 
> The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun.  Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.
> 
> I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology.  Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.


Just spitballing. That block may become the AAW frigate/destroyer to replace the Tribals.


----------



## Swampbuggy (31 Oct 2022)

FSTO said:


> Just spitballing. That block may become the AAW frigate/destroyer to replace the Tribals.


If so, my hope would be to have at least 5 of them in that block.


----------



## Underway (31 Oct 2022)

Swampbuggy said:


> When you say “second block” is that understood to be ships 4-6 or do we feel like that may come later in the stream?


Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.

It's smart to build them this way.  Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward.  And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.

You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.


----------



## Czech_pivo (1 Nov 2022)

FSTO said:


> Just spitballing. That block may become the AAW frigate/destroyer to replace the Tribals.


Can we really continue to say 'replace the Tribals' when the time between the last active Tribal and the first AAW frigate/destroyer will be greater than 20yrs?   It's a bit like us suddenly getting a Mistral class ship and saying its to replace the Bonnie that's been gone over 40yrs. All that experience/knowledge of having an aircraft carrier is long gone, it's a brand new capability that has to be re-learned I would think. It will be the same with the first AAW version of the CSC's when it comes on line, all the experience/knowledge of the Tribals will be long gone by then.


----------



## FSTO (1 Nov 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Can we really continue to say 'replace the Tribals' when the time between the last active Tribal and the first AAW frigate/destroyer will be greater than 20yrs?   It's a bit like us suddenly getting a Mistral class ship and saying its to replace the Bonnie that's been gone over 40yrs. All that experience/knowledge of having an aircraft carrier is long gone, it's a brand new capability that has to be re-learned I would think. It will be the same with the first AAW version of the CSC's when it comes on line, all the experience/knowledge of the Tribals will be long gone by then.


The Tribals (Post TRUMP) were AAW C2 ships. It’s a capability that we need and there are residual memories within the fleet that will help in regaining that knowledge.


----------



## Swampbuggy (1 Nov 2022)

Underway said:


> Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.
> 
> It's smart to build them this way.  Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward.  And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.
> 
> You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.


I absolutely appreciate the logic behind doing it this way, particularly as it should occur relatively early in the build cycle. I was concerned that if it were to be more of a half and half split, around ship 8 or so, that there could be a repeat of the CPF block 2 situation. IIRC the second flight of HAL were to have better accommodations for TG command staff, more numerous VLS etc, but it didn’t transpire. If the will is to address any shortcomings by ship 4, that’s encouraging.


----------



## Czech_pivo (1 Nov 2022)

FSTO said:


> The Tribals (Post TRUMP) were AAW C2 ships. It’s a capability that we need and there are residual memories within the fleet that will help in regaining that knowledge.


I agree that there will be a need (or, to be clearer, there is currently a need), for AAW C2 ships, I just question how much residual knowledge/experience will have value after an elapsed time period of 20+yrs. 
I suspect any real knowledge/experience will be gained by officer/enlisted exchange training opportunities within the RN and/or USN over the next 5-10yrs.


----------



## FSTO (1 Nov 2022)

The current CO of Glace Bay was an ORO in a 280. By the time the first CSC is in the water he should be still in a position to have a hand in training the next generation of operators.

That's the hope anyway.


----------



## MTShaw (1 Nov 2022)

Underway said:


> Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.
> 
> It's smart to build them this way.  Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward.  And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.
> 
> You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.


The PBO CSC report figure 2-1 implies that that the Development of the CSC will drop quickly when Acquisition starts. No doubt that there will be differences between the first few and subsequent ships. But that’s all i see.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2022)

It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.

Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.


----------



## MTShaw (1 Nov 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.
> 
> Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.


My big hope is that more frigates = thorough maintenance. Alas…


----------



## Underway (1 Nov 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.
> 
> Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.


When the RCN decides on that same thing, the government will be the first to know...   



MTShaw said:


> The PBO CSC report figure 2-1 implies that that the Development of the CSC will drop quickly when Acquisition starts. No doubt that there will be differences between the first few and subsequent ships. But that’s all i see.


A lot of the development costs will be done at that point, but adding some more VLS and changing out a gun over the entire developement of all the other systems is an entirlely different prospect.


----------



## Czech_pivo (2 Nov 2022)

Underway said:


> When the RCN decides on that same thing, the government will be the first to know...
> 
> 
> A lot of the development costs will be done at that point, but adding some more VLS and changing out a gun over the entire developement of all the other systems is an entirlely different prospect.


I'm curious to understand why the perceived need to lower the capabilities of the main gun to that of a lessor one for some of the CSC.  I have been listening to everyone on here (the all encompassing 'army.ca' site) extol the virtues of having commonality of weapons platforms and/or other systems across systems is a good thing as it reduces maintenance/training costs and timelines.  If a new main gun is introduced into the CSC mix, the RCN will go from its current 2 naval gun inventory to 3, which in turn means that training/maintenance costs/timelines will increase by 1/3.  The storage requirements/space of ammo will increase by 1/3.  The process of procuring ammo for this new gun (which will more than likely only ever number 3 or 4) will increase accordingly. How can this be a good thing?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2022)

I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main  gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.


----------



## JMCanada (2 Nov 2022)

Is there available space & weight to increase the EXLS cells (for CAMM missiles) from 6 to 9?


----------



## Swampbuggy (2 Nov 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main  gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.


Is the 76 an appropriate compromise between the other two weapons? With VULCANO rounds you have the precision and range for some shore bombardment capability but you also have a choice of ammunition and a higher rate of fire to presumably be more effective against air threats.


----------



## MTShaw (2 Nov 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main  gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.


Leaving how complex the change of the main gun may be aside;

I can’t imagine the goal is to be able to shoot down UAVs using a direct hit. Instead I was thinking using proximity shells to pepper the UAV with fragments and submunitions. 

127/64 compatibility 








						Extended Range Guided Munition - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





			https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18299996/OTO+127-64+LW+%28MM08728%29_LQ.pdf?t=1643204551796
		


The Marline WS


			https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18421316/MARLIN+30_new.pdf?t=1618842731728
		


Yup I’m retired.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Nov 2022)

MTShaw said:


> Leaving how complex the change of the main gun may be aside;
> 
> I can’t imagine the goal is to be able to shoot down UAVs using a direct hit. Instead I was thinking using proximity shells to pepper the UAV with fragments and submunitions.
> 
> ...


Changing down from a 5" will be easier than changing up to it. So I be happy they keep the 5" for now and build the design for that with option of fitting a small gun into the space for the 5" later.


----------



## Underway (3 Nov 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm curious to understand why the perceived need to lower the capabilities of the main gun to that of a lessor one for some of the CSC.  I have been listening to everyone on here (the all encompassing 'army.ca' site) extol the virtues of having commonality of weapons platforms and/or other systems across systems is a good thing as it reduces maintenance/training costs and timelines.  If a new main gun is introduced into the CSC mix, the RCN will go from its current 2 naval gun inventory to 3, which in turn means that training/maintenance costs/timelines will increase by 1/3.  The storage requirements/space of ammo will increase by 1/3.  The process of procuring ammo for this new gun (which will more than likely only ever number 3 or 4) will increase accordingly. How can this be a good thing?



Trade-off, not lower capability. 127mm is a bad AAW weapon and an excellent land attack and surface warfare weapon.  57mm is an excellent defensive  AAW system.  And if a 57mm is taken instead of a 127mm then we might be able to get another row of missiles installed, which of course changes capability again.

Commonality is fine IF the capabilities are met by comonality.  If the capabilites are not met through comonality and require a mix of weapon systems then that's what the RCN needs to look at.

Lets also remember that the final design review for Block I of CSC is still a few years away with initial steel being cut expected 2024 and full build started 2025.  This means that discussions on Block II will only truely begin 2027ish as the people are freed from Block I duties.  So any loadout change is still drawing board discussion until we start getting Block I at a minimum.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Nov 2022)

I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?


Then you lose that sweet, sweet 220 rd/min rate of fire….


----------



## Underway (5 Nov 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Then you lose that sweet, sweet 220 rd/min rate of fire….


My favourite part of tours is explaining how many rounds that gun can put out.  It never fails to impress the crowd, particularly when you play a recording of the rate of fire to make it real to the listeners.



Colin Parkinson said:


> I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?


I don't trust the 127mm to be any good at AAW.  I might be wrong but it's rate of fire is just so low that you have less rounds to adjust against a manouvering target.

76mm is a great gun, but again using a gun to hit a target far from the ship likely means you aren't hitting the target unless it doesn't manouver well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Nov 2022)

My understanding was that we were going back to the 127mm (sometimes called the 5 inch gun  ) gun as a surface warfare and land support weapon - not as an AAW weapon at all.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Nov 2022)

Is upgrading the 30mm's to a bigger calibre an option or of value?


----------



## Swampbuggy (5 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> Is upgrading the 30mm's to a bigger calibre an option or of value?


Would’ve loved to see a 35mm millenium there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Nov 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> My understanding was that we were going back to the 127mm (sometimes called the 5 inch gun  ) gun as a surface warfare and land support weapon - not as an AAW weapon at all.


Apparently near the end of the war, the 5" was the predominate plane killer, radar and VT fuzes made the difference. I believe this is the gun we are getting  This article goes deep into the Type 26 gun and it gives some good details on it.









						In focus: the 127mm Mk 45 gun that will equip the Type 26 frigates | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




This is what we have selected








						Canada Selects Leonardo Naval Gun Systems for the CSC Combat Ships - Naval News
					

Leonardo has been awarded a contract to supply four OTO 127/64 LW Vulcano naval guns for the Royal Canadian Navy’s new multi-role combat ships. The contract was further to a competitive international tender.




					www.navalnews.com
				




Going by Wiki there only about 19 mounts in service, so not as much user base as the BAE gun with some 250 mounts in service


----------



## Underway (11 Nov 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently near the end of the war, the 5" was the predominate plane killer, radar and VT fuzes made the difference. I believe this is the gun we are getting  This article goes deep into the Type 26 gun and it gives some good details on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yah but the leonardo system is so much better, at least on paper.  Faster rate of fire, higher calibre = higher muzzel velocity = longer ranges, better feed system from the magazine and a bunch of other stuff I can't be bothered to look up right now.

I do get the concern though. I think part of the selection was also because Leonardo submitted for the 30mm as well.


----------

