# Electronics for 280 replacement



## Navalsnpr (15 Mar 2006)

Although we may not know when we will receive replacement ships for the current 280's, it is a safe bet that they will eventually come.

That being said, does anyone want to comment on the types of electronic equipment that should be considered for these ships? I'm looking at four main sections:

Communications
Radar
Sonar
Weapons (offencive and defencive)


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

WELL...
for one thing, it all has to be compatible with the gear being used & developed by our major allies... US, UK, NATO.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Mar 2006)

If real NGS is going to be a role, some sort of proper counter-battery radar might be good.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Mar 2006)

RADARS- should be 3D either Signaal SMART or SPY1D(air/fc)
             -Signaal APAR (air/surface)
             - navigation radar I have no real preference.
WEAPONS- 2 Helos
              -Gun at least 76mm ideally 5"/54
             - 4-6 20mm Oerlikons or 25mm Bushmasters for small boat defence.
              -2 Vulcan Phalanx (still not a big fan of RAM)
              -48-64 SM2 Standards (MK41)
              -8 Harpoon II SSM
             -MK46 Torpedoes (MK32 Mod 14)


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

.... lots of spare parts


----------



## NCRCrow (15 Mar 2006)

lets have our helo's Penguin Equipped with an IR capability...nice close ASUW IR seeker...ooo-rah


----------



## Melbatoast (15 Mar 2006)

Well, sometime last year there was a suggestion in _Warships International_ that Canada was looking at acquiring some of the stood-down US Ticonderogas, which wouldn't be too bad a solution and a lot faster than coming up with an indigenous design.  You've got your phased-array radar, two 5" guns, more VLS cells than you can shake a stick at, and room for a crazy ASW combat system, the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15.  Throw some Mk.54 LHT torps in (vertical launch ASROC !), and they'd probably be good value for money initially, although very fuel hungry (4x LM2500), and big.  With a decent degree of modernization, though, they'd probably not be as manpower intensive as you might think.


----------



## NCRCrow (15 Mar 2006)

nah....lets build our own and create some jobs and innovative (intergrated) technology. 

lets not have a harbour full of Fram II's, Garcia's and Knox classes and finally Tico's in 20 yrs time.


----------



## Collin.t (16 Mar 2006)

something similar to the new type 45 would be awsome http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Mar 2006)

AIS Automatic Identification System receiver would be good to add.

For Sonar, let's have the new Active/Passive Towed array system.  I'm tired of our SONAROPS not being able to find subs under the layer.

NS


----------



## NCRCrow (16 Mar 2006)

AIS is already here


----------



## Melbatoast (17 Mar 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> AIS Automatic Identification System receiver would be good to add.
> 
> For Sonar, let's have the new Active/Passive Towed array system.  I'm tired of our SONAROPS not being able to find subs under the layer.
> 
> NS



We would never ever be able to use it, and CANTASS isn't a bad system at all when used correctly, instead of indifferently.  With fairly minor upgrades it could be much better, but the SQQ-89A(v)15 that I mentioned is the apex of surface ASW combat systems right now - it uses the SQS-53C hull mount sonar as a projector, and our very own SQR-19 array as the receiver.

But again, we would probably never be able to use it outside of very occasional, strictly controlled open ocean testing.  It kills animals, and normally the cutest (i.e. most controversial) ones.  

This LFA stuff is probably going to go away pretty quick anyway, as passive array technology has advanced immensely in a pretty short period of time.  According to open source material, SURTASS ships streaming dual TB-29D arrays have excellent detection against the most modern, submerged conventional subs.  Unfortunately they are extremely expensive arrays, and not really tactical, as such, due to size and fragility.  But, the Americans are supposedly testing monofilament arrays on subs that perform as well as hydrophone arrays but are obviously much easier to handle.  Imagine a bunch of those bundled together in a suface ship, which can easily handle big gear - wow.  Throw in a COTS type 32 (dare I hope for 64?)-bit acoustic signal processor and the sky is the limit.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Mar 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> AIS is already here



I know.

I've installed it twice on the Montreal.  Great tool, unfortunately, we had to buy it ourselves.

(Installed twice because the Halifax stole our first one.)

NS


----------



## Crown-Loyal (21 Mar 2006)

all this talk about weaponary has my mind going. I saw on TV that Canada had purchased some Squall Torpedo's from russia and that putin himself signed the deal. Do we infact use these super fast torpedos?



			
				Crown-Loyal said:
			
		

> *** I did a search after posting my question sorry about that ***


----------



## who980 (23 Mar 2006)

COMMUNICATIONS -
The new ships will hopefully have a comms suite that isnt full of mission fits and jury rigged kit like the CPF's have.  (And Im sure the 280's to).  
Hopefully we can ditch the AN/UYK-507 series processors and maybe have a commerical off the shelf type system. (Intel Windows/Unix based?) 
SHINCOM upgrade?  I know the Frigates are supposed to get this at FELEX.
Mini DAMA SATCOM system
SHF SATCOM system
Newer Handheld PRC's (Harris?)


----------



## aesop081 (24 Mar 2006)

Crown-Loyal said:
			
		

> all this talk about weaponary has my mind going. I saw on TV that Canada had purchased some Squall Torpedo's from russia and that putin himself signed the deal. Do we infact use these super fast torpedos?



if you had payed attention to the rest of the TV show ( which i watched), Canada was the agent that purchased these torpedoes for the USN..........Of course thius is only "aledged" to have happen........regardless of what the CBC says


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> RADARS- should be 3D either Signaal SMART or SPY1D(air/fc)
> -Signaal APAR (air/surface)
> - navigation radar I have no real preference.
> WEAPONS- 2 Helos
> ...



I would definetely like to see that, with some modifications:
Crew requirements: 
- Crew of 270, with space for an additional 50 personnel (e.g. flag officer, small troop detachment, etc). So, crew size a bit bigger than CPF.
Weapons:
- Capability for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile fitted (but no missiles installed), so that if needed in emergency, Tomahawk's can be loaded onboard and fired as needed
          - 2 MK41 VLS launchers, one on bow, one near hangar
- MK46 torpedoes replaced through fleet with Mk50 or MK54 LHT torpedo (either one of those torpedos can be fired out of current platforms and torpedo tubes)
- A RAM installation replacing one Phalanx
- The guns are fine as they are, so we are keeping them
Future Expansion:
- Additional deck space for future weapons suites to be intergrated (expandability and upgradability is a good idea for the future)
Countermeasures:
- SeaGnat decoy system self defense + RAM/CIWS
- 2 SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoys
Engines:
- CODAG
- 2 GE LM2500 gas turbines or 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 engines for high speed operations
- 2 MTU V20 diesel cruise engines
- High automation for engine room, reducing crew size
Sensors:
- CANTASS sonar suite
- Thales Sirius IRST long-range infrad surveillance and tracking system
- Mini-UAV launch capability
Communication:
- NATO Link 16 and Link 11/22 communications system
Displacement:
- 6000 tons (much bigger than Halifax, and Tribals)
Design:
- X form design (stealthy design) as in MEKO A family frigates
- Elmination of the funnel, instead using exhaust system found in MEKO A class frigates (They operate as stated: _A reduction of about 75% on the ship's infrared signature has been achieved by elimination of the funnel, and instead hot exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system. Seawater is injected into the exhaust duct to cool the exhaust fumes, before being expelled just above the waterline._)
       - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
- Enclosed mast
- In short, design is very clean, and stealthy
Command and Control:
- Preferably Aegis combat system


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I would definetely like to see that, with some modifications:
> Crew requirements:
> - Crew of 270, with space for an additional 50 personnel (e.g. flag officer, small troop detachment, etc). So, crew size a bit bigger than CPF.
> Weapons:
> ...



Gonna fit all of that and then some on a 6000 ton platform? Good freakin' luck. :


----------



## aesop081 (30 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Gonna fit all of that and then some on a 6000 ton platform? Good freakin' luck. :



- I dont see all that fitting into anything less than a 9000 ton and above hull ( cruiser sized.  Ticonderogas are 9600 tons-ish).  The Mk41 VLS alone takes up alot of deck space, let alone 2 of them

- Not a big fan of the Rolling airframe missle ( RAM) myself.  

- By the time this ship would be designed and ready for the yard..AEGIS will no longer be the cadillac of combat systems

 :


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Gonna fit all of that and then some on a 6000 ton platform? Good freakin' luck. :



Ok, 6000tons to start with. I am not a naval engineer, but I think it can be done. I am currently stareing at the specs of the Chinese Type 52C Lanzhou class air defence missile destroyers, which has a very similar setup as follows:
- 2 CIWS, one bow, one stern
- 8 6-cell VLS launcher for 48 HQ-9 missiles (equivalant to US Patriot or Standard)
- 2 4-cell YJ-62 anti-shipping missiles
- 1 100mm gun
- 2 triple torpedo tubes, firing Chinese copies of the MK46 torpedo
- stern hangar accommodates 1 or 2 Kamov Ka-28 (NATO codename: Helix) antisubmarine warfare helicopters
- CODOG, consisting of two Ukrainian gas turbines rated at 48,600hp and two Chinese copies of the MTU 20V diesels
- She also has a four-array multifunction phased array radar (PAR) similar to the U.S. AN/SPY-1 Aegis system
- The size as estimated is 6,500 tons (I have seen conflicting reports that the design is 7000 tons), with a length of 154m (approx), a beam of 17m, and a draft of 6m.  The destroyers have a crew of about 280, and she has a max speed of 29 knots (approx)
The ship is estimated to be more than a match to the Burke class destroyers on paper. In reality, I got no clue. A source (other than my copy of Jane's) is here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/lanzhou052c.asp

Edit: If anyone wants to say I am wrong, so right ahead. Perhaps we can scale the thing down a bit by dropping a VLS launcher.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Mar 2006)

Why add needless costs to designing such a ship when we can get some decent designs off the shelf already? You only increase costs, make it less attractive for other nations to buy the design, cause needless delays in the program, cause needless teething pains for a brand new design, and run the risk of cost overruns.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Edit: If anyone wants to say I am wrong, so right ahead. Perhaps we can scale the thing down a bit by dropping a VLS launcher.



I am not saying you are wrong, not by far, just maybe a little ambitious for a 6000 ton class hull.  Like i said, you are probably looking at a 9000 ton class ( and up) with everything you included.  Droping a single VLS will save you alot of deck space and weight.  I have seen close up both Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers ( flights I, II and IIA) and was impressed at the amount of room needed for the Mk41. Add to that 4 large engines and everything else........As well i think that all inclusive, a vessel much larger that destroyer size is out of reach of the CF's financial abilities ( as far as surface combatants are concerned)

My $0.02


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I am not saying you are wrong, not by far, just maybe a little ambitious for a 6000 ton class hull.  Like i said, you are probably looking at a 9000 ton class ( and up) with everything you included.  Droping a single VLS will save you alot of deck space and weight.  I have seen close up both Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers ( flights I, II and IIA) and was impressed at the amount of room needed for the Mk41. Add to that 4 large engines and everything else........As well i think that all inclusive, a vessel much larger that destroyer size is out of reach of the CF's financial abilities ( as far as surface combatants are concerned)
> 
> My $0.02



I understand. Is the size of the Mk41 due to the basic design of the VLS system, as the Chinese VLS is a cold launch rotary system, where the missile is ejected first then the rocket fires, and the Mk41 is a hot-launch system? Is there any other NATO VLS system that is smaller yet packs the same number (48 missiles) of missiles that I am not aware of?


----------



## Melbatoast (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> - MK46 torpedoes replaced through fleet with Mk50 or MK54 LHT torpedo (either one of those torpedos can be fired out of current platforms and torpedo tubes)



The Mk.50 completed its production run years ago (1996 according to Janes UWS) and is being phased out.  It's dangerous to store anywhere due to the oddball propulsion system.  It was also _ridiculously_ expensive - it was developed during the Baroque period of the Cold War after all (the mid 1980s).  The LHT is probably going to be our replacement.  I don't know how that works, whether you can stick a Mk.54 warhead and sensor package on an existing Mk.46 body, or what.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I understand. Is the size of the Mk41 due to the basic design of the VLS system, as the Chinese VLS is a cold launch rotary system, where the missile is ejected first then the rocket fires, and the Mk41 is a hot-launch system? Is there any other NATO VLS system that is smaller yet packs the same number (48 missiles) of missiles that I am not aware of?



Yes the Mk41 is a "hot" launch system, here is a good picture of the launch:

http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/gra_mk41.htm


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (30 Mar 2006)

Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy.  

If this is meant as more of a "fantasy navy" kind of concept, then hell throw all the kit you can imagine on there!  

On a more practical level, I would like to see a bigger gun perhaps with some ERGM's (Extended Range Guided Muntions for those not in the know).  For an SSM I'd like to see the SS-N-27.  You have to give it up to the Russians when it comes to producing what I personally consider to be some of the best weapons out there.  As for a radar, we should be using a 3D phased array system.  Not for it's AGEIS benefits but from a continuous tracking advantage.  

Just my 2cents.


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy.
> 
> If this is meant as more of a "fantasy navy" kind of concept, then hell throw all the kit you can imagine on there!
> 
> ...



We also sail around with American carrier groups as well. And since a carrier is a HVU, and most of the US carrier escorts (except the Perry class frigates) have the Aegis combat system, interoperability with American units will be greatly enhanced. Also, talk of a LHD purchase for the CF means that for us, a LHD is a HVU as well.

With Tomahawk, all I am suggesting is that the software and hardware to launch Tomahawk be there, not that we are going to buy Tomahawk's. We may never fire a Tomahawk at a target in anger, but that capability would be very nice to have if situations show up requires that we need some form of land attack missile.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Mar 2006)

> Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy.



We might not need AEGIS but we do need some sort of 3D system...have you ever seen what a 3D system can do? As for not protection an HVU other then the tanker, not sure where you get your info but as part of Coaltion Ops for the past dozen years we habe helped protect carriers to LHAs. You are out of your league when you said we don't need Link, what do you think we use to pass critical info? Ummm hello, since the 70s we have been using Link. Since we are going into the role of amphib ops we will need some sort of SSM whether HarpponII or  TAcTom. give your head a shake.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> We also sail around with American carrier groups as well. And since a carrier is a HVU, and most of the US carrier escorts (except the Perry class frigates) have the Aegis combat system, interoperability with American units will be greatly enhanced.



So you think our ideal ships would be ones that would allow us to turn our autonomy over to the Americans?  Keep in mind that we are also part of NATO so should we adopt a common AGEIS style system with all the NATO nations so they could take over our systems in a time of battle?  

There is a merit to what you're saying but there is need for us to have a greater autonomy in being able to control our own ships weapon systems.  Link provides for a common picture and integrates us into the battle picture and problem.  We don't need a system that turns control of our weapons over to another nation.  Whether we are integrated with them in a battle group or not. 



> With Tomahawk, all I am suggesting is that the software and hardware to launch Tomahawk be there, not that we are going to buy Tomahawk's. We may never fire a Tomahawk at a target in anger, but that capability would be very nice to have if situations show up requires that we need some form of land attack missile.



This would be like the kid who carries a knife to school "just in case".  Again, Tomahawks would be a nice to have...sure....but given what our role is as a navy I'm just saying there isn't a need for them.  The Canadian navy IMHO (and according to our White paper) isn't meant to take a fight to another country.  Accordingly, we don't need "offensive" weapons.  All that being said IF we wanted this capability all we would need to do is upgrade our Harpoons and the command moduels. There really isn't a need for a new missile.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (30 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> We might not need AEGIS but we do need some sort of 3D system...have you ever seen what a 3D system can do?


  

As I already said



> As for a radar, we should be using a 3D phased array system.  Not for it's AGEIS benefits but from a continuous tracking advantage.





> As for not protection an HVU other then the tanker, not sure where you get your info but as part of Coaltion Ops for the past dozen years we habe helped protect carriers to LHAs.



I've sailed in the gulf as an FCS when we were part of a fully integrated unit for a BG so I'm fairly aware about coaliton ops.....  My comment was directed toward CANADIAN operations, not as us trying to be part of the USN!  I don't see that as our role.  I understand how a number of people think this might be our role considering many of our main experiences have been while sailing integrated in BG's, but if we're considering a new CANADIAN ship I don't think we need to look at how we can be better assimilated into the USN.  



> You are out of your league when you said we don't need Link, what do you think we use to pass critical info?



Again, I was talking about the AGEIS system.  My comment went on to say that we don't need a link system that is a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  All respect, but you're out of your league if you don't understand the difference between our link sys and that of AGEIS.  



> Since we are going into the role of amphib ops we will need some sort of SSM whether HarpponII or  TAcTom. give your head a shake.



Give my head a shake?  If you're launching in Harpoon 1E/F's.  The Harpoon II's are for littoral use (mainly) and not for land attack.  Also, during a land attack your not exactly going to be landing your troops during the engagement.  When was the last time you saw a troop landing during a Tomahawk strike?  Let me tell you in case you have some misconception.  You don't!


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Mar 2006)

I vote to skip on the torpedo tubes, and put a few ASROCs in the VLS cells.

By the time a sub's close enough for us to engage with a ship fired torp....we're in trouble.

NS


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

Ok, taking all the suggestions, here is the revised specifications:

Crew requirements:
- Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel

Weapons:
- Capability for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile fitted (but no missiles installed), so that if needed in emergency, Tomahawk's can be loaded onboard and fired as needed
- 48 Standard II missiles
- 1 MK41 VLS launcher
- MK54 LHT torpedoes (or ASROC in VLS)
- RAM installation on bow
- Phalanx 1B installation on stern
- 1 OTO-Melara 76mm gun
- 8 Harpoon missile launchers
- 2-4 Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns
- 4 x MK 32 torpedo launchers

Future Expansion:
- Additional deck space for future weapons suites to be intergrated (expandability and upgradability is a good idea for the future)

Countermeasures:
- SeaGnat decoy system self defense + RAM/CIWS
- 2 SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoys
- FL 1800 S II ECM suite (as in F124 Sachen frigates)

Engines:
- CODAG (Combined diesel and gas) for higher speed cruise
- 2 GE LM2500 gas turbines or 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 engines for high speed operations
- 1 MTU V20 diesel cruise engine
- High automation for engine room, reducing crew size

Sensors:
- CANTASS sonar suite
- Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system
- Mini-UAV launch capability
- Lockheed AN/SPY-1D radar  (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) if Aegis equipped, or Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L air/surface search, plus) or BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search)
- Thales Scout navigation radar 

Communication:
- NATO Link 16 and Link 11/22 communications system

Displacement:
- 6500 tons (much bigger than Halifax, and Tribals)

Aviation:
- Hangar space for 2 CH-148 Cyclone's
- Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6, big enough to handle 15 ton helo
- Beartrap

Design:
- X form design (stealthy design) as in MEKO A family frigates
- Elmination of the funnel, instead using exhaust system found in MEKO A class frigates (They operate as stated:_ A reduction of about 75% on the ship's infrared signature has been achieved by elimination of the funnel, and instead hot exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system. Seawater is injected into the exhaust duct to cool the exhaust fumes, before being expelled just above the waterline._)
       - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
- Enclosed mast
- In short, design is very clean, and stealthy

Command and Control:
- Preferably Aegis combat system

Endurance:
- 3 weeks

Edit: Yes, I spent a bit too much time chew on the radars... otherwise, I think I have everything down pat.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Ok, taking all the suggestions, here is the revised specifications:
> 
> Crew requirements:
> - Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel
> ...



In both of your specification lists you have started with crew size.  Have you developed a chart that details if that is sufficient to maintain and operate all of these systems?

What mission profile do you base a "3 week endurance" on?


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> In both of your specification lists you have started with crew size.  Have you developed a chart that details if that is sufficient to maintain and operate all of these systems?
> 
> What mission profile do you base a "3 week endurance" on?



I based my crew size by using crew sizes for ships of a similar tonnage, and mission profile (AAW multirole destroyer/frigate). I am also trying to automate as many ship functions as possible (for example, with propulsion, the system will be automated to the point where nobody is actually required in the engine room, taking the cue from the Thetis class patrol frigates). I am considering the Burkes to the upper end of crew size (346 officers and crew) (even though the Burke is 3000 tons bigger than my proposed design), with the Alvaro de Bazán class frigate as my lower end of the crew size (240 officers and crew) (closer to my specification's actual job and size).

The mission profile will require that the ship last 3 weeks out at sea patroling either by themselves or in a task group. The ship should have enough space for provisions for a mission that long without replentishment.

If I made any fundamentally wrong assumptions, please, do tell me, and how to correct it.

Edit: In any case, this design is fundamentally more capable than the Iroquois destroyers it is replacing, and probally be capable than the Halifax class frigates on paper.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Mar 2006)

Maximizing automated systems?  Weren't you arguing against tank autoloaders in another thread?

Ah yes, here it is one such comment found on a search of "auto loaders" by Armymatters:



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> I have, but I still have misgivings over an autoloader in a tank.



But you'd maximize automation of systems in something as complex as a warship?  We're not talking about putting a cruise ship on auto-pilot here. Have you given any consideration at all to the complications that might arise from, Oh!, perhaps enemy ection that could require many simultaneous human interactions for troubleshooting and ship survival along with combat operations, activities that might rwquire something more proactive than a programmed system?

Three weeks operation may work for piont to point missions, but what about station-keeping or extended combat operations?  Perhaps one of the experienced sailors can address modern mission durations.


----------



## Armymatters (30 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Maximizing automated systems?  Weren't you arguing against tank autoloaders in another thread?
> 
> Ah yes, here it is one such comment found on a search of "auto loaders" by Armymatters:
> 
> ...



I acknowledge that in some roles, a computer may in fact be more suitable for the job than a human person. Managing the propulsion system is one of those tasks where automation would make sense (naturally, there will be a small number of engine specialists onboard for maintainence while at sea and monitoring the propulsion system).

I am not suggesting we make the _entire_ ship fully automatic, I am only suggesting that in some areas, it would make sense, with perhaps a small number of human crew as backup. The actual shooting will be controlled by both computers and human beings.

I also have some misgivings over the endurance time period, but from the looks of other comparable designs, 3 weeks appears to be the norm without resupply (although how long the ship can last until it runs out of fuel is a totally different manner). I would too like to hear from someone who is more experienced regarding mission durations.

Edit: From the looks of it, I am right now bang on in terms of crew size, in fact I may even have too much crew members. This is my conjecture.
Edit 2: This is really starting to become a good mental exercise as well, trying to figure this all out.


----------



## Inch (31 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Aviation:
> - Hangar space for 2 CH-148 Cyclone's
> - Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6, big enough to handle 15 ton helo
> - Beartrap



2 Cyclones eh? I've landed on a Ticonderoga and we had to land diagonal across the deck because their flight deck isn't big enough for a Sea King. The Cyclone will be similar in size. I don't think you realize how big a helo actually is, start with 70 ft long with rotors turning, then add 15 ft for clearance from the hangar and you need a flight deck that's 85 ft long, minimum. An awful lot of space for one helo, now what are you going to do with the second? You certainly wouldn't be able to operate them concurrently, you'd need a flight deck that was over 100 ft wide.

As for Sea State 6, is that Beaufort scale? If it is that's weak. The most sea state I've flown in was 7m swells with up to 20 degrees of roll.

Beaufort Scale Sea State 6: 22-27kts  Strong Breeze  Large waves begin to form; the white foam crests are more extensive everywhere. Probably some spray.  

Again you're showing your inexperience with how things work. You make no mention of a hauldown, only a bear trap, do you know how it works?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Mar 2006)

No, he's letting you do the work for him........... 

....hopefully some guy named "Inch" will at least be a footnote/reference.


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

Bruce, this is conjectural ship design is hereby named The Army.ca Iroquois Destroyer Replacement Design.

In short, we are all laying down the specs together, and I am trying to make them all fit together (with tons of help from you all).

So, so far, the specs are as follows:

Crew requirements:
- Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel

Weapons:
- Capability for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile fitted (but no missiles installed), so that if needed in emergency, Tomahawk's can be loaded onboard and fired as needed
         - I am seeing that Tomahawk can be fitted in the MK41 VLS, which is present in our design, so all we need is the software and the associated minor hardware to fire it
- 48 Standard II missiles
- 1 MK41 VLS launcher
- MK54 LHT torpedoes (or ASROC in VLS)
- RAM installation on bow
- Phalanx 1B installation on stern
- 1 OTO-Melara 76mm gun
- 8 Harpoon missile launchers
- 2-4 Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns
- 4 x MK 32 torpedo launchers

Future Expansion:
- Additional deck space for future weapons suites to be intergrated (expandability and upgradability is a good idea for the future)

Countermeasures:
- SeaGnat decoy system self defense + RAM/CIWS
- 2 SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoys
- FL 1800 S II ECM suite (as in F124 Sachen frigates)

Engines:
- CODAG (Combined diesel and gas) for higher speed cruise
- 2 GE LM2500 gas turbines or 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 engines for high speed operations (leaning more towards GE for fleet commonality, but the RR engine is very promising)
- 1 MTU V20 diesel cruise engine
- High automation for engine room, reducing crew size
- 4 x 1000KW generators

Sensors:
- CANTASS sonar suite
- Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system
- Mini-UAV launch capability
- Lockheed AN/SPY-1D radar  (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) if Aegis equipped, or Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L air/surface search, plus) or BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search)
- Thales Scout navigation radar

Communication:
- NATO Link 16 and Link 11/22 communications system

Displacement:
- 6500 tons (much bigger than Halifax, and Tribals) full load

Aviation:
- Hangar space for 1 CH-148 Cyclone
- Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6 (Pierson - Moskowitz Sea Spectrum), so that means a max of 20ft waves, 33kt winds
- Big enough to handle 15 ton helo
- Beartrap-type device for haul down (RAST) as in Halifax (provided by Indal Technologies of Ontario)

Design:
- X form design (stealthy design) as in MEKO A family frigates (no right angles)
- Elmination of the funnel, instead using exhaust system found in MEKO A class frigates (They operate as stated: _A reduction of about 75% on the ship's infrared signature has been achieved by elimination of the funnel, and instead hot exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system. Seawater is injected into the exhaust duct to cool the exhaust fumes, before being expelled just above the waterline._)
       - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
- Enclosed mast
- In short, design is very clean, and stealthy
- To give a frame of reference as to how big it is and how it will look, think of the French/Italian Horizon class frigates, but remove the funnels, and the extra 76mm gun and center the remaining gun (how the mast will look will depend on the radar chosen)

Command and Control:
- Preferably Aegis combat system

Endurance:
- 3 weeks provision (?)

Feel more than free to further critique the design some more. Frankly put it, any criticism is welcomed to help improve the design.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> As for Sea State 6, is that Beaufort scale?* If it is that's weak*. The most sea state I've flown in was 7m swells with up to 20 degrees of roll.



Absolutely right !!  In fact i was bobing around in a 10-man life raft during my sea survival course at sea state 5 to 6..........nothing to worry about.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> 2 Cyclones eh? I've landed on a Ticonderoga and we had to land diagonal across the deck because their flight deck isn't big enough for a Sea King. The Cyclone will be similar in size. I don't think you realize how big a helo actually is, start with 70 ft long with rotors turning, then add 15 ft for clearance from the hangar and you need a flight deck that's 85 ft long, minimum. An awful lot of space for one helo, now what are you going to do with the second? You certainly wouldn't be able to operate them concurrently, you'd need a flight deck that was over 100 ft wide.



The Ticonderoga were designed to carry LAMPS-III helos ( aka SH-60) which are considerable smaller than you CH-124.  Our 280 destroyers can *carry* 2 CH-124s can they not ?




> Again you're showing your inexperience with how things work. You make no mention of a hauldown, only a bear trap, do you know how it works?



Thats why his name is *army*matters....not navymatters or airforcematters


----------



## Inch (31 Mar 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The Ticonderoga were designed to carry LAMPS-III helos ( aka SH-60) which are considerable smaller than you CH-124.  Our 280 destroyers can *carry* 2 CH-124s can they not ?



Right, I was just pointing out how such a large ship has a relatively small flight deck. Our 280s can carry 2 helos, they haven't in recent memory other than Op Unison due to aircraft avail. SHOPs states that in order for another helo to use your deck, even if it's your second one, you must have a suitable spare deck or airfield ashore, be capable of HIFR with your ship as well as one in company or be capable of folding and putting the second helo in the hangar in order to recover your own helo in the event of an emergency. 

Armymatters, I jumped the gun a little there, 2 helos would be fine, I was just pointing out that they couldn't both be on the flight deck at the same time.

As for Sea State, no where in SHOPs (Shipborne Helicopter Operating Procedures) does it say the limits on Sea State. The HHRSD/RAST system was designed with a pitch and roll limit, not a sea state limit. It's designed to securely hold the helo on deck up to 9 degrees of pitch and 31 degrees of roll. The ship can alter course to get a steadier deck no matter what the sea state is.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

OFF topic but thanks Inch...i'm deep into studying MPA - HELO coop right now so your post is prety helpful


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Again armymatters why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? There are plenty of decent off the shelf designs we could get without making this unpalatable to the tax payer anymore then it has to be....


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

Right, so we are going to restore the second Cyclone for 2 CH-148's. In short, the ship will look like a copy of the Italian/French Horizon class frigates:









Just remove the funnels, remove one of the 76mm guns and center the remaining gun, put in the MK41 VLS on the bow instead of the SYLVER launcher, install the RAM on the bridge, the Phalanx on the hangar, and replace the 8 Exocet launchers with 8 Harpoon in the middle, and we are done.
It will be a very clean and stealthy design, as seen, with covers on the side Zodiacs, etc to minimize radar signature.

Ex-Dragoon, I am not suggesting we should design the ship from sratch. All I am suggesting is that we take the basic hull form of an existing design that is being built that is of the same size, and then drop in what we want in terms of armament and equipment. The Horizon class frigate provides a good hull design that has plenty of space for what we wish to drop in. With some minor modifications (removal of the funnel, enlargement of hangar, installation of system to vent and cool the gas at the water line instead), we can get a futureproof design. Some of the existing design currently avaiable are not suitable in terms of armament or equipment loadout, but the hull form can be used as the basis for our own design.

In short, I am modifying the wheel, not reinventing it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Hoe do you know its a good hull design? This fact or an opinion?


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hoe do you know its a good hull design? This fact or an opinion?



You beat me too it  ;D

my money is on "opinion"


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hoe do you know its a good hull design? This fact or an opinion?



It meets the size requirements of the specification list we put out, while having some room to spare. Remember I specified a ship with a crew size of about 270 with some extra room for additional people, and displaces 6,500 tons. In short, this is purely opinion, but it meets the design criterias.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

That does not mean it will succeed as a class.

You have a perfectly good class here, all you need is a hull extension for extra command staff and you have an excellent flagship and area air defence ship as the SCC seems to want. With the hull extension in the rest of the class you can optimize for other roles.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/

The F123 class is detailed below:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/brand/


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

I would rather have a ship that is from the start bigger than use a smaller design and stretching it. Stretching a design may pose more problems than just using a larger design and installing the weapon suites we want to have. Horizon is compared to Sachen 3 metres beamier, 10 metres longer, has 3000nm more range, and over twice the endurance at sea, while having the same top speed (29 knots) and the same cruise speed.

Edit: While the Horizon class frigates are newer, watch FS Forbin, as she was launched last year, and she is due for delievery sometime this year. The Italian ship Andrea Doria was also launched last year, but she is due sometime early next year.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Sachen and Brandenburg are already proven designs...Horizon is not.


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sachen and Brandenburg are already proven designs...Horizon is not.



According to DCN (from this PDF: http://www.dcn.fr/us/medias/docs/DP_mafForbin_100305_uk.pdf), FS Forbin is due for her first sea run this Spring, and she will be delievered this December.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> According to DCN (from this PDF: http://www.dcn.fr/us/medias/docs/DP_mafForbin_100305_uk.pdf), FS Forbin is due for her first sea run this Spring, and she will be delievered this December.



That doesnt make it a proven design


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> That doesnt make it a proven design



True, but the design will be proven by the end of this year, according to her builders.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Builders always say that...does not mean they are always right.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> True, but the design will be proven by the end of this year, *according to her builders.*



Well we'll just see what comes out of sea trials and acceptance trials..........takes more than a year to prove a design sound  :

Use your head a little


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Well we'll just see what comes out of sea trials and acceptance trials..........takes more than a year to prove a design sound  :
> 
> Use your head a little



Alright (grabs a cup of coffee), let's wait.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Bruce, this is conjectural ship design is hereby named The Army.ca Iroquois Destroyer Replacement Design.
> 
> In short, we are all laying down the specs together, and I am trying to make them all fit together (with tons of help from you all).



We who?  Aren't you jumping the gun by presuming you have some form of concensus?  What makes you think "we" want an army.ca label on _your _pet ship design?




			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Just remove the funnels, remove one of the 76mm guns and center the remaining gun, put in the MK41 VLS on the bow instead of the SYLVER launcher, install the RAM on the bridge, the Phalanx on the hangar, and replace the 8 Exocet launchers with 8 Harpoon in the middle, and we are done.
> 
> In short, I am modifying the wheel, not reinventing it.



What is this? Pimp My Boat? or West Coast Frigates?


You've loaded your design ....

Tomahawk Land Attack Missile
Standard II surface-to-air missile
SEASPARROW missiles (vs. missiles and surface units)
Torpedoes
Anti-cruise missile missiles
76 mm "main" gun
Harpoon anti-ship missiles
25/27 mm "secondary" guns

Countermeasure suite


Canadian Towed Array Sonar (CANTASS) 
UAV capability
etc.,etc.

Hel

"stealth" design


Quite the all applications shopping list. Perhaps you need to go back to basics and fill in the parts you haven't explained:

What role will this ship have? Specifically, why one vessel that tries to do everything? Where is the case study supporting that approach? Could some of these roles be better executed by different mission specific ships, perhaps on a common hull for compatibility? You're talking about a very expensive solution for various missions that may not be compatible. You have not yet demonstrated that this is the most efficient and economical solution.

Is this ASW?
Is this a ship to ship combat platform?
Is this an air defence platform?
Is this a long range attack platform?
Is this a C2 ship?
Is it a patrol vessel for picketing and boarding inspections?

Or will it do all of the above at a reduced capacity because in each case it's dragging extra baggage?

Ship design, like tank design, doesn't start with "I like that one, let's see what else we can strap on her" - it starts with "what do we need a ship to do?"  You haven't answered that question, yet you're creating a wish list for a "replacement" vessel that would be a very different beast from what you are suggesting it should replace.

Start by demonstrating the role supporting, and requirement for, the capabilities. Then move on to developing one, or more, vessel designs that meet the requirements most effectively.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Oh no...not an underlying concept


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2006)

Sorry, Staff College spent so much time and energy forcing that Operational Planning Process into my head, now I just can't get it out.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, Staff College spent so much time and energy forcing that Operational Planning Process into my head, now I just can't get it out.



Micheal......for shame....for shame


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Coming over to the darkside then Michael? 

We will give you a parrot and an eyepatch.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2006)

Logic and process work with both sides of the Force, so you'll not tempt me Mr. Sith.  Well, maybe some of that rum would be nice .....


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2006)

YARGHHHHHH


----------



## Armymatters (31 Mar 2006)

Ok, the design's underlying concept:
We are in short trying to develop an area-AAW frigate/destroyer with secondary anti-submarine and self-defense suite. The ship is designed to be a floatilla/task force "leader" if you will (C2), so having space for passengers or fleet commanders will be required. Long term, long range deployments to areas around the world will be emphasised in the design. Interoperability with key allies (such as the US) and multi-mission capabilites is emphasised in the design. Therefore the basic hardware requirements are as follows:

Martin Marietta's Mk 41 Vertical Launch System
The Mk 41 VLS is the key to the design. The Mk 41 VLS is capable of launching a wide assortment of weapons, including Standard II, Tomahawk, and ASROC. The ship's loadout of weapons (either full load of 48 Standard II's, or some combination of Standard II's, Tomahawks, and ASROC's) is dependent on the mission on which the platform is employed. In short, some modularity with mission profile is already present in the design. The design will use the full sized version of the Mk41, the Mk41 VLS Strike launcher:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

Anti-submarine Warfare
Self defense ASW will be made present in the design. Deployments with this vessel will usually not be solo deployments; another vessel will usually acompany the vessel (usually a CPF) while on deployment. A submarine detection system comprising of a helicopter and ship-borne sonar should be intergrated with the vessel to acomplish this task. If submarines are detected by the vessel, the ability to immediately engage the submarine with weapons is required to eliminate the threat posed by such submarine. The platform and the acompanying helicopter should be armed with anti-submarine torpedoes in both air-launched or torpedo tube launched format, with an optional option to 'lob' a torpedo at distance to a target if the helicopter is not in position to fire on the submarine.
The Ratheyon Mk54 LHT torpedo will be the primary anti-submarine weapon launched from the ship. The torpedo is considered the next NATO standard torpedo, and combines the capability of the Mk50's sensors with the dependable NATO standard Mk46 torpedo's propulsion. The Mk54 LHT torpedo is also going to be the US Navy's primary anti-submarine torpedo, which the usage of the Mk54 in our platform will provide interoperability and support with the Americans.

Countermeasures
Defending against hostile missiles and other munitions launched against the platform or against friendly ships in the area is a required part of the platform's mission. The ship will be equipped with offensive and defensive ECM to deny targeting against the platform or against friendly ships in the area will be necessary for the survival of the platform and any friendlies in the area. The FL 1800 S II ECM suite will provide offensive ECM capability to prevent weapons being fired against the platform while the SeaGnat decoy system will help provide protection against weapons that have been launched against the platform. The twin SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy's will help provide some anti-torpedo protection by confusing any passively or actively guided torpedo.
A stealthy design will also help provide the platform with some extra protection against hostile weapons as it helps reduce the chance of detection by radar. As such, the elimination of right angles and clutter on the upper deck and superstructure is recommended to help reduce the radar signature of the platform.

Surface sensors
Since area AAW is emphasised in the design, a highly capable multi-function radar set is obviously needed. The Lockheed AN/SPY-1D (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) radar suite, or the Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L long range air/surface search radar) radar suite or the BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search) radar suite fills the role of a long range, highly capable radar suite. All systems have a minimum detection range of over 200km, which would throw out a large air defense bubble around the ship, giving ample time to mount a response to any threat that is detected.
An IRST (Infra-red search and track) system will also be intergrated for closer in air defense detection. The Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system (as to be intergrated with the CPF in FELEX) is an excellent choice to fill in the close range detection.

Anti-Surface Warfare
Self-defense long range ASuW capability is provided by the 8 Boeing Harpoon missile intergrated with the platform. The missiles will provide anti-shipping capability to protect the platform and any friendly vessel nearby against hostile warships.
The single OTO-Melara 76mm gun will provide additional closer in anti-air capability, while the caliber of the gun will also allow anti-surface and some ground shelling capabilites to be present in the design.
For small boat protection, a couple of small caliber automatic weapons will be provided by either the Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns. Both systems are considered the premier of small caliber autocannon's in the Western inventory.

Air Defence
Air Defence is provided by the Standard II missiles in the Block IIIB standard launched out of the Mk41 VLS. The missile will provide long range anti-air defense capability, and the Mk41 VLS will provide the platform with the ability to quickly engage multiple air threats with rapid fire missiles.
Additional closer in/point air defense is provided by the single OTO-Melara 76mm gun as described above.
For last ditch defense against missiles and airplanes, the Phalanx IB and the Rolling Airframe Missile. With both CIWS, point defense of the entire ship from a variety of targets will be provided.

I think I covered all my bases, if there is anything I missed or needs clarification, please, do tell me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Apr 2006)

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but aren't the Aussies in the midst of designing an Arleigh Burke-light (by Gibbs & Cox) that perhaps we could cooperate on?  

My understanding is they want to simplify the design and systems to reduce the crew size down to 180 from the Burke's standard 340+, reduce weight from 9600 tonnes to approximately 8000, reduce VLS from 96 to 64 and improve the helicopter capacity to accommodate the NH-90.


M.   ???


----------



## Armymatters (1 Apr 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but aren't the Aussies in the midst of designing an Arleigh Burke-light (by Gibbs & Cox) that perhaps we could cooperate on?
> 
> My understanding is they want to simplify the design and systems to reduce the crew size down to 180 from the Burke's standard 340+, reduce weight from 9600 tonnes to approximately 8000, reduce VLS from 96 to 64 and improve the helicopter capacity to accommodate the NH-90.
> 
> ...



Depending on how you look at it, yes, but the Aussie government hasn't acutally ordered the ships yet or selected the design, but design has focused on what can be termed a Burke mini. The Spanish Alvaro de Bazán class (F100) frigate is the official alternative. The German F124 Sachsen frigate was eliminated last year:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/designer-selected-for-australian-air-warfare-destroyers/index.php#more


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Ok, the design's underlying concept:
> We are in short trying to develop an *area-AAW* frigate/destroyer with secondary *anti-submarine* and self-defense suite. The ship is designed to be a *floatilla/task force "leader"* if you will (C2), so having space for *passengers *or fleet commanders will be required. *Long term, long range* deployments to areas around the world will be emphasised in the design. *Interoperability *with key allies (such as the US) and* multi-mission *capabilites is emphasised in the design. Therefore the basic hardware requirements are as follows:
> 
> _[blah, blah, blah deleted]_
> ...




Armymatters, please do not presume that you have presented a 'complete argument.'

Take your head out of the technology-worship sphere for a minute.  You have only described (again) the ship you have 'designed' and stroked the verbiage on the technology you're already listed.

You have yet to address the question.

Why?

Why do we "need" this particular ship?

Why does it need those particular capabilities?

Where does it fit in a plan based on national defence policy, mission and roles for naval forces, and structure and management of a national fleet?

Where does this fit in with the rest of this mythical navy you have managed to completely ignore while designing your "perfect" personal idea of a new ship.

Step back from your list of parts, and cut-and-pasted characteristics, and explain what task(s) we need ship(s) to do.  Please do not limit yourself to the tasks you forsee your personal ship doing.  Then, from assessing what scale and priority each task has, which ones might be required simultaneously and on what frequency.  Where in the world might these happen and under what organizational structures (NATO, UN, uni-lateral, etc.)?  Eventually you will start to see that one big, expensive, all-singing, all-dancing vessel (or a small number of them) might NOT be the best solution for flexibility and efficient addressing of all assigned and implied (possible) tasks.

Stop selling a design without reference to what we might actually need it for.

You are doing what we call "situating the estimate" - i.e., starting with your preferred solution and then trying to manage the argument to defend it.


----------



## Armymatters (1 Apr 2006)

Alright, here we go again:

Roles

The required roles of a replacement for the Tribals will be narrowed down to area-air defense, command and control, and secondary anti-submarine warfare, for an direct replacement of the current Tribals. The 1994 Defence White Paper called for the maintenance of “multi-purpose, combat-capable” sea forces able to carry out a wide range of tasks, including:

conduct surveillance and control of Canadian maritime areas of jurisdiction;
• support the operations of other government departments in fishery protection and other constabulary tasks;
• maintain a task group on each coast for the defence of North America under the long-standing bilateral defence arrangements, and that Canada’s maritime forces be interoperable with those of the United States;
• maintain one ship one each coast available to deploy on UN missions as part of the ‘vanguard’ force;
• participate in the NW Pacific naval exercises, the Pacific Rim (RIMPAC) series as an expression of continued Canadian commitment to Asia-Pacific security;
• support NATO operations at sea by making available a ‘naval task group comprised of up to four combatants (destroyers, frigates or submarines) and a support ship, with appropriate maritime air support,’ as well as continue to provide one ship for the Standing Naval Force Atlantic and, on occasion, another ship with the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean;
• provide a mine countermeasures capability, relying on the Naval Reserve to man the ships; and
• maintain sufficient sea lift capability to support land force operations.
- From the 1994 Defence White Paper
Adding warships that are capable of multi-mission operational capabilites will enhance the missions layed out under the 1994 Defence White Paper

Area-AAW: The CF has identified a need for a area AAW frigate/destroyer to replace in the future, the current Tribals which are due to be retired in 2010. The current Tribals are marginal in terms of their area air-defence capability, due to their dated radar set, and the fact that they were originally to be a stop-gap measure only. Area air-defence capabilites is considered by the CF as part of “Canada’s core naval capabilities”, and investment in a new platform for area-AAW is only natural in order to maintain area-AAW capabilites. The ability to throw a large air defence 'bubble' over CF vessels and Allied vessels is part of the area air-defence requirements, and the associated equipment and weapons should be included in any future design. 

C&C (Command and Control): The current Tribals also have been tasked for task force command operations, with either other Canadian warships or with Allied task forces (American or NATO). Therefore, space for extra passengers (such as task force commanders) and the acompanying equipment for C&C should be installed in any replacement of the current Tribals to maintain and enhance the current C&C capabilities of the Navy. Over recent years, the Canadian Navy regularly commanded multinational naval formations, mainly the NATO Standing Naval Force Atlantic (as with the current _Athabaskan_ deployment as task force leader of Standing Naval Force Atlantic). Such a design will help maintain under the 1994 White Paper the follows roles as dictated by the White Paper:
- maintain a task group on each coast for the defence of North America under the long-standing bilateral defence arrangements (The current Tribals operate as task force and fleet leader on the Pacific and Atlantic coast).
- maintain one ship one each coast available to deploy on UN missions as part of the ‘vanguard’ force (having C&C capabilites will allow such Canadian participation in such UN missions to be the leader of the force, enhancing Canada's role on the world stage)

In the present and in the future, Canadian Naval policy has been leaning more towards an internationalist policy, in which Canadian warships are frequently intergrated with American carrier groups, command of NATO naval forces, etc. Such an internationalist policy will require that Canada make the necessary investment for warships with C&C capabilites built in from the start.

The task force concept for the Canadian Forces is essential for the ability to meet the spectrum of tasks that will be encountered by the Canadian Navy. As the Navy League of Canada has stated in 2001 under the document, Canadian Naval Requirements for the 21st Century:

_As explained, the task group concept is fundamental to being able to meet the full spectrum of tasks; furthermore, the requirement to have Canadian warships integrated into US and other formations is a tasking of the highest political order for those ships are the embodiment of a sound foreign policy. For these reasons, replacing the Tribal-class destroyers is a very high priority. Shifting to a policy whereby destroyers rather than frigates undertake the majority of the international commitments as well as serve as task group leaders justifies replacing the existing four destroyers with eight new ships of a design that is compatible with the US Navy and with the majority of NATO ships. In this, it would make sense to consider adopting an American design, such as the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, provided it can be done quickly before those ships become obsolescent. If this cannot be done, steps should be taken to ensure that any new design remains fully interoperable with US and NATO naval forces._.

ASW: The Canadian Navy has often been tasked in the past with anti-submarine warfare, a requirement that extends from the Cold War. However, with the current world enviroment, ASW is still essential to the Canadian Forces, as most nations that have a coast on an ocean has a navy, possibily with a conventional submarine. A secondary ASW capability is therefore required to protect any future design, and add to the protection of any Canadian or Allied task forces.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Apr 2006)

So, the core of your premise is the contents of the 1994 White Paper ......

Have you considered anything newer for force capability projections, or future force requirements based on current and projected threats?


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Apr 2006)

You have to get the crew size down to less than 200.

then launch her:  http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx


----------



## Armymatters (1 Apr 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You have to get the crew size down to less than 200.
> 
> then launch her:  http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx



We can get something as capable as our current Halifax class frigates down to a crew of 70, excluding the air wing:





http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/formidable/
Meet RSS Formidable; a variant of the French La Fayette class stealth frigate. Brand new too, launched only in 2004, and is due for full service in 2007.

Michael, I have considered some other things as well: shore based threats, due to the increasing emphasis on littoral combat, escort of future CF sea lifters, and possibility landing ships, and of course, show of force missions with other CF or Allied ships. Also, the ever prevalant task force command by the CF in support of our foreign policy objectives is also important.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Michael, I have considered some other things as well: shore based threats, due to the increasing emphasis on littoral combat, escort of future CF sea lifters, and possibility landing ships, and of course, show of force missions with other CF or Allied ships. Also, the ever prevalant task force command by the CF in support of our foreign policy objectives is also important.



And yet, you still manage to keep coming around to your singular favourite 'solution.'

If you have actually considered these things, and wish to pretend you have developed a complete case, then perhaps we should have started by seeing that estimate.  Try starting with development of requirements, from scratch, not reverse engineered from preferred technology combinations.  Then develop the various possible options of fleet structures and component ship types that will meet those requirements from a fleet perspective.  Then, and only then, focus on the capabilities of each of the individual hulls within an overall, and longterm, fleet plan.  Don't forget planning and development of manning strategies, support infrastructure, and training facilities - the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."

Once again, you've have jumped to declaring victory in designing your preferred piece of hardware without any substantial mention of where it fits in the real picture.  Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?


----------



## aesop081 (2 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And yet, you still manage to keep coming around to your singular favourite 'solution.'
> 
> If you have actually considered these things, and wish to pretend you have developed a complete case, then perhaps we should have started by seeing that estimate.  Try starting with development of requirements, from scratch, not reverse engineered from preferred technology combinations.  Then develop the various possible options of fleet structures and component ship types that will meet those requirements from a fleet perspective.  Then, and only then, focus on the capabilities of each of the individual hulls within an overall, and longterm, fleet plan.  Don't forget planning and development of manning strategies, support infrastructure, and training facilities - the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."
> 
> Once again, you've have jumped to declaring victory in designing your preferred piece of hardware without any substantial mention of where it fits in the real picture.  *Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?*



I'm certainly not....anymore.  Too encompassing, too much "allsiging -all dancing" for me.  I'm not a naval expert, or even a naval anything but what i do know is this is too much for the Canadian navy.  Wishful thinking and nothing more.. Armymatters, you based yourself on the 1994 white paper......i hate to braje it to you academic-only mind but the 1994 paper was dead before it was even published.  You are a very smart individual, i will agree to that but you have never or ever will face the reality of the field....that is the downfall of anything you say ........sorry  but there it is !!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Apr 2006)

> Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?



We also get tired of his implied tone we don't know what we are talking about. I have given up in trying to pass on what I know and experiences to this person because otherwise his Janes knows best...


----------



## Journeyman (2 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> - the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."



...because your name isn't Chretien, and this isn't a CC-144 _Challenger_ deal....yet.   ;D


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

I am again throwing out some ideas around, but 2 major roles (area-AAW, and C2) plus two minor roles (ASuW and ASW) for a new warship is more than being reasonable with a design (we can dump land attack as we don't seem to need it). We can purchase off the shelf to speed up procurement and drive down costs, but unless we want to use non-CF standard weapons (such as Exocet and Aster missiles), they will have to be significantly refitted for our needs. Then again, we can probally drive down some costs by landing ASuW (anti-shipping missiles removed, but space for installation remains), landing the ship's torpedo tubes (torpedoes only avaiable on the helicopter, but space remains for installation if needed in the future) so that we only concentrate on 3 roles: area-AAW, C2, and a minor ASW role.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Apr 2006)

Why is ASuW and ASW minor? The navy certainly does not view either as minor.

There are other new classes that use more then just the Exocet and Aster. Have you even looked at Netherlands _Karel Doorman _ class which uses Harpoon/Sea Sparrow, their_ Jacob van Heemskerck_ class that uses Harpoon/Sea Sparrow/Standard(albeit SM1), Spain's _Alavra de Bazan_ that uses Harpoon/ESSM/ Standard(SM2), Germany's _Sachen_ with Harpoon/ESSM, Australia's _Anzac_ fitted with Harpoon and Sea Sparrow. Those are just the frigates

Destroyers include Netherlands _De Zeven Provincien_ fitted with harpoon/ESSM/SM2 not to mention the modified _Areliegh Burke_ that Cdn Blackshirt has brought up that the RAN is looking at.

So now tell me Armymatters that these ships are not more then capable to meet our needs and explain to me how we would have to use non-CF weapons as you brought up in your post? Because we use:
1) The Sea Sparrow
2) The Harpoon
3) SM2
4) ESSM we have bought

Hello...the idea of warship is to be able to fight whatever is the threat, _not_ specific threats because you figure landing certain weapon systems makes more sense then having them embarked. Start listening to what people here are trying to tell you vice reading because clearly you haven't learned anything you are reading.
.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Apr 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why is ASuW and ASW minor?



+1



> embarked. Start listening to what people here are trying to tell you vice reading because clearly you haven't learned anything you are reading.
> .



He's doing it in the AF forum too........ :


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

I will shut my mouth for now, and throw in the towel, as I admit defeat.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Apr 2006)

Locked.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Apr 2006)

Ok this is being unlocked after consultation with Michael O'Leary. Lets stick with the topic at hand and try not to stray.


----------



## Navalsnpr (5 Apr 2006)

I am really amazed at the amount of discussion that this topic has brought forward . Obviously we all know that the 280's require replacement and coupled with the vast number of military contractors, there are multiple options that could be thrown on the table for a replacement

I believe that "_ships that can do more with fewer personnel_" is a concept that has been thrown around in the past and this obviously is something to consider. Mind you this ship must be able to handle a limited number of training billets, staff billets and maintain the ability and numbers to still be able to perform boardings. So I think that it should be able to steam with 125-150 personnel, but be able to handle up to 275-300 personnel with staff and two complete boarding teams embarked.

Although it would be nice to have a dual-hanger configuration, only one helicopter would be required. With the JSS coming on line, 2nd line maintenance could be performed on that class of ship rather than this ship. Besides, dual hanger creates a top heavy ship... which we currently have and call a 280!

With all the above being mentioned, we also have to maintain focus that Canada  are strong leaders in the ASW world as well as being able to hold their own in the other areas of nautical warfare. Obviously this ship should be able to accomplish those tasks as well.

With the newer technologies being made available, it seems to be easier to do more with less personnel... although training for these personnel becomes very long. This is just sign of the times.

Looking at the issue of a "_Greener Military_" where you have the Combat Arms occupying positions on the ground and then all other parts of the military are there to support those forces, I think that NGS should be an option to look at as well.

Like Ex-Dragoon said, lets stick with the main discussion as I think this one has brought about many good ideas...


----------



## Inch (5 Apr 2006)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Although it would be nice to have a dual-hanger configuration, only one helicopter would be required. With the JSS coming on line, 2nd line maintenance could be performed on that class of ship rather than this ship. Besides, dual hanger creates a top heavy ship... which we currently have and call a 280!



I'm not particular either way, one or two hangars, makes no difference to me as an operator.

I just want to clarify something though, I don't think you understand what 2nd line maintenance is. 2nd Line maintenance must be able to be done on the mother warship. I'm no maintenance type, but my understanding is that 1st line maintenance is the daily stuff like pre and post flight inspections, fueling, torpedo loading, etc. 2nd Line maintenance would be things like engine changes, scheduled inspections, etc. This is stuff that can be done on FFH/DDH's, if you can't then your helo becomes useless to you until you hit port and are able to crane it off and onto the tanker for maintenance. 

My understanding of the tanker's maintenance organization is that they carry more spares and an AERE, otherwise in my experience, everything that could be done on a ship at sea, we've done with the 11 embarked technicians. When something pops up like gear or ASE snags, we disembark at the earliest convenience in order to perform the maintenance ashore where the deck doesn't pitch and roll.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

The Tanker maint org is also capable of doing CAMPs (Continigency Air Maintenance Programs) which can replace every second Periodic (done every 600-650 flying hours on a Sea King).  The tanker also has shops that allow for some limited third line test bench and maintenance work on engines and electronics.  That all said, my understanding of the Cyclone is that there will not be a "periodic" maintenance session every so many flying hours, as many items which are currently "lifed" in flying hours will become "on-condition" items (ie, it does not get replaced until it begins to show signs of wear).  This will naturally change how we will do maintenance at sea, but don't ask me how. I just expended my knowledge of aircraft maintenance... 

I like Navalsniper's thoughts on crew size.  I think he is going in a sensible direction.  The mistake, IMHO, we have made in the past is to build our ships with exactly the number of bunks for the crew size at design stage.  Inevitably, the ship is launched and we find out that we forgot all about carrying trainees, extra medical people, PAFFOs, lawyers, whatever.  I like the idea of having a bunch of "extra" mess decks that can be closed off for normal "peacetime" sailing or opened when needed to carry an extra boarding party, a platoon of infantry soldiers, JTF-2, NCDts on phase IV MARS, etc.

I'm not sure the problem with the top-heaviness of the 280s has much to do with the dual hanger.  It is, after all, mostly empty space.  The real problem, I think (I'm not MSE), is how the hull is designed and the machinery organized.  As for 1 vs 2 helos on the Future Surface Combattant- I could care less as well.  The Cyclone should (in theory) be much more reliable than a Sea King and the incredible sensors available should mean that we will require fewer of them at sea with a TG to get the same (or better) job done.


----------

