# AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nice but I would hope we would look at something more attainable. The _San Antonios_ are nice as well but I think even they are pushing our envelope.



I need to ask a series of dumb questions which follow my sometimes questionable logic path:

Question 1)   Where do I really need an Air Defence Capability today?
Answer 1)   When I am close to shore and in range of land-based fighters/bombers.

Question 2)   What would necessitate me being this close to shore?
Answer 2)   Direct support of deployed land forces.

Key Assumptions:
1)   I would not deploy amphibious or ground forces without carrier air cover (American/British)
2)   With carriers automatically comes dedicated American/British multirole Destroyers (with TBMD I might add)

New Question:   
Would it therefore not make sense to buy (6) LPD-17's with the Ship Self Defence Suite Mk.2 (with VLS and ESSM) and eventually phase out the purpose-specific Air Defence Destroyer while transferring the already trained crews to run the Command & Control for the LPD's?   

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So using your logic Cdn Blackshirt the only time a Cdn Rask Group would have an area air defence capability is when we took a San Antonio with us???

to me that is like saying the US should always protect Canada . :


----------



## Cloud Cover

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Would it therefore not make sense to buy (6) LPD-17's with the Ship Self Defence Suite Mk.2 (with VLS and ESSM) and eventually phase out the purpose-specific Air Defence Destroyer while transferring the already trained crews to run the Command & Control for the LPD's?



This sort of analysis at least shows an advanced level of thinking that probably wouldn't even get to the Cabinet table. 

In no particular order, here are some responses to consider with 6 C&C LPD's with SSDS: 

Too expensive; lack of manoeverability compared to AAD; harder on fuel [less range] than AAD; requires tanker/MPRS support: tanker/MPRS  requires ASW/AAW fighting escort to theatre; very serious EW and countermeasures concerns over using LPD for SSM launch platform; removal of scalable and proportional contribution to a coalition effort; not enough soldiers for 6 ships; not enough sailors for 6 ships; coaltion and allied escorts [readur UN "friends"]  may not be willing to take one on the chin for a Canadian LPD; a bigger less stealthy target more vulnerable to air launched stand off cruise missiles; a slower target more vulnerable to torpedo or modified torpedo; and last but not least: the bigger they are, the harder they fall!! 

A ship like that cannot hide on the surface anymore. If Mr. Dithers wants an LPD capability, he is asking for real trouble without national AAD assets to go along, especially if the tanker/LPD hybrid is still being fancied.  [which is an idiotic concept expressly rejected by the officers who would have to command the things as wilfully blind folly.]


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think we are wasting our time, Whiskey, trying to convince some of these guys why we need AAD, they don't listen despite us and others going over this over and over again.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Like the man said:  "ayup".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I need to ask a series of dumb questions which follow my sometimes questionable logic path:

Question 1)  Where do I really need an Air Defence Capability today?
Answer 1)  When I am close to shore and in range of land-based fighters/bombers.

Question 2)  What would necessitate me being this close to shore?
Answer 2)  Direct support of deployed land forces.



> Key Assumptions:
> 1)  I would not deploy amphibious or ground forces without carrier air cover (American/British)


What if carriers were unavailable?


> 2)  With carriers automatically comes dedicated American/British multirole Destroyers (with TBMD I might add)


See above...you cannot guarantee that. What if those ships were tasked elsewhere?



> New Question:
> Would it therefore not make sense to buy (6) LPD-17's with the Ship Self Defence Suite Mk.2 (with VLS and ESSM) and eventually phase out the purpose-specific Air Defence Destroyer while transferring the already trained crews to run the Command & Control for the LPD's?


So you would risk 700 plus  Marines? What about air defence when LPDs were not required? Also see whiskey's comments.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Whiskey and Ex,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.   And of note Ex, it's not that I don't believe you re: AAD, it's that in order to fault-test any paradigm, I start by trying to break the one I have currently utilise with all the information I have at my disposal.

In any case, a couple of quick responses:
1)   Whiskey - I think we can eliminate "proportional contribution" as an item as we could allocate CPF's if a single vessel is what is required.
2)   Whiskey - Too expensive in comparison to what?   Are AAW's and the LPD-17 not nearly equivalent in procurement cost?
3)   Whiskey - Support - see below.... 
4)   Whiskey - Not enough soldiers/sailors - downsize NDHQ, and reallocate salaries.     ;D
5)   Ex-Dragoon - If there are no escorting carriers and a land-based fighter/bomber/cruise missile threat exists, I don't enter the theatre.   I would want complete air dominance before ever putting a vessel with 700 "marines" in harm's way.

That being said, let's say that your operational model of an AAD being absolutely necessary to defend an LPD fleet is undeniable, is there a possibility of changing our current structure as generalists with every piece of kit we have, and instead specialize certain kit in certain roles?   Specifically, can we break our naval assets (to start with) into two specific groupings high risk littoral vessels (requiring an AAW capability) and lower risk coastal patrol vessels (perhaps not requiring an AAW capability)?

If we did that, could we then get away with procuring only (2) AAD's as flagships for said Littoral Battle Groups?

Littoral Battle Group Composition (one unit per coast)
(1) Aegis Destroyer (off-the-shelf, don't dick with it, keep Tomahawk capability)
(2) CPF - eventual upgrade but pass on the hull extension and focus on ASW and self-defence
(3) LPD-17 - carrying a maximum of 2100 troops with gear.   (I say we find a way to get the soldiers and sailors rather than dismiss this sized battlegroup)

Littoral Battle Group Supply Structure (one unit per coast)
(1) Patino-equivalent AOR/MPRS (or alterntaive type)
(2) CPF - same as above

Add-On Units (one unit per coast)
(2) Additional CPF's for ASW and additional self-protection
(3) Dedicated non-steel Minesweepers
(2) Victoria-class Submarines

Remaining CPF's along with Kingston-class become primarily Coastal Defence Units although all CPF's would receive same set of upgrades.   

Bottom Line:   It would change our role from a long-duration single/double ship allocations to more than one multinatinal projects that last years (constant rotation), to a shorter duration ground forces deployment and support role for shorter time frames at which point everyone comes home, and the second string from other nations step in.

Thank you again for your thoughts....

Cheers,



Matthew.


----------



## DJL

> If we did that, could we then get away with procuring only (2) AAD's as flagships for said Littoral Battle Groups?



Playing with fire with going that low.........What would you do if one of your DDGs is in a major refit and the sole deployable one gets into an accident or suffers a mechanical fault (or sunk)? Scrub the deployment, go ahead without the AAD?



> Littoral Battle Group Composition (one unit per coast)
> (1) Aegis Destroyer (off-the-shelf, don't dick with it, keep Tomahawk capability)
> (2) CPF - eventual upgrade but pass on the hull extension and focus on ASW and self-defence
> (3) LPD-17 - carrying a maximum of 2100 troops with gear.  (I say we find a way to get the soldiers and sailors rather than dismiss this sized battlegroup)



So you are proposing about six LPD (at about a billion a pop) to move an army battlegroup? How about instead, 3-4 RO/ROs to move (the equipment) of an entire brigade for about a billion (possably under if used) all told?



> Littoral Battle Group Supply Structure (one unit per coast)
> (1) Patino-equivalent AOR/MPRS (or alterntaive type)
> (2) CPF - same as above




A single (Patino sized) AOR would be grossly inadequate to support your taskgroup of 6-9 ships and well over 4k personal, then to say nothing about supporting the pongos when they get ashore. You would need a supply train roughly the same size as an American ATF........say about 1-2, large AORs, then a couple of oilers and dry goods/ammunition ships, then throw in some additional freighters and tankers to support your embarked force once they land and the fighting starts............Biggggg Money......After the Americans, the only other nation that I think could pull this off would be the Brits......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> 5)  Ex-Dragoon - If there are no escorting carriers and a land-based fighter/bomber/cruise missile threat exists,* I don't enter the theatre*.  I would want complete air dominance before ever putting a vessel with 700 "marines" in harm's way



Sorry we don't have that luxury.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Don't mind me, but based on what I'm learning, I'm continueing to try to improve the model....

What if we modify the Battle Group Structure:

Canadian Expeditionary Group (now only one)
(3)   AAD's
(3)   CPF's
(3)   LPD's

*3 interchangeable ground units of 2,000 men capable of fighting from this structure in order to guarantee healthy rotations. 
 [of note, I don't see how we can have a force structure of over 60,000 men and not be capable of sustaining 2,000]

Canadian Support Group (please ignore stupid name)
(3) CPF's 
(3) AOR/MPRS
(3) Ro-Ro (usually allocated to Canadian Auxilliary Reserve in model identical to British Structure)


And assume add-on unit remain unchanged....


Better?   Worse?   Recommendations for further modification.




M.


----------



## DJL

> What if we modify the Battle Group Structure:
> 
> Canadian Expeditionary Group (now only one)
> (3)  AAD's
> (3)  CPF's
> (3)  LPD's
> 
> *3 interchangeable ground units of 2,000 men capable of fighting from this structure in order to guarantee healthy rotations.
> [of note, I don't see how we can have a force structure of over 60,000 men and not be capable of sustaining 2,000]



Why does the army require "3 interchangeable ground units" (to "guarantee healthy rotations") and the Navy is only afforded one "Expeditionary Group"? IOW, what is the point of having three army formations for rotation when the navy can only deploy one third of the time? Do you plan to increase the Navy's workload by three times?


----------



## FSTO

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Don't mind me, but based on what I'm learning, I'm continuing to try to improve the model....
> 
> What if we modify the Battle Group Structure:
> 
> Canadian Expeditionary Group (now only one)
> (3)   AAD's
> (3)   CPF's
> (3)   LPD's
> 
> *3 interchangeable ground units of 2,000 men capable of fighting from this structure in order to guarantee healthy rotations.
> [of note, I don't see how we can have a force structure of over 60,000 men and not be capable of sustaining 2,000]
> 
> Canadian Support Group (please ignore stupid name)
> (3) CPF's
> (3) AOR/MPRS
> (3) Ro-Ro (usually allocated to Canadian AuxAuxiliaryserve in model identical to British Structure)
> 
> 
> And assume add-on unit remain unchanged....
> 
> 
> Better?   Worse?   Recommendations for further modification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.



Okay, staying with the concept of the Canadian Task Group;

2(at the very best 3) LHD/LPD/LHA whatever is decided. One on each coast with the 3rd being used for surge capability/refit replacement/etc.

4 AORs (one on each coast) we could even build updated Protecteur class. (diesel electric propulsion, flight deck on same deck as stores elevators, modern bridge, modern MCR, compartment monitoring by tv; all these improvements will drop the number of pers required substantially)
4 AAW destroyers (there are lots out there that we can buy off the shelf)
12 FFH (this is where we could go with the new common hull, the CPFs are in worse shape than anyone would believe. They will not last the 30+ yrs that the old steamers did)
4 to 6 subs
Then the rest of Patrol ships. If you need something like force protection in the area you are operating, you can send the smaller ships on a heavy lift ship (similar to the one that brought the USS COLE back from Yemen) and then operate them out of there.

In my strongest opinion the CF should stay away from a hybred hybridD there is a reason why nobody has done it. It will not satisfy anyone.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I pretty much have the same view as FSTO with minor differences. What I would also add to his post is MCM units. Not the Kingston class but something designed from the keel up to be a mine hunter. Suggestions being the German built _Hameln_ class, the Belgium _Tripartite_ class, and the UK_ Sandown _ & _Hunt_ classes come to mind as being good platforms.


----------



## Infanteer

In all my writings and ramblings on "Joint Force Transformation" that I've put up here and am working on at home, I've found it useful to stick to what is "doable".  I've solicited the advice of both Ex-Dragoon and FSTO and they've both given me very similar and very workable layouts for increasing our Naval Power while at the same time enhancing our Joint Capabilities.  Lets just say that, when your trying to work out a plan, you should really stick to the advice of those "in the know".

As "sexy" as LPD's, 2000 man battlegroups, and multi-role ships sounds, it wouldn't survive the light of day if it was put on PM PM's desk.  Heed the proposals that these Sailors have put up here - they are solid and workable.

Infanteer, the Joint Force Cheerleader


----------



## Cloud Cover

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Whiskey and Ex,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to respond.  And of note Ex, it's not that I don't believe you re: AAD, it's that in order to fault-test any paradigm, I start by trying to break the one I have currently utilise with all the information I have at my disposal.
> 
> In any case, a couple of quick responses:
> 1)  Whiskey - I think we can eliminate "proportional contribution" as an item as we could allocate CPF's if a single vessel is what is required.
> 2)  Whiskey - Too expensive in comparison to what?  Are AAW's and the LPD-17 not nearly equivalent in procurement cost?
> 3)  Whiskey - Support - see below....
> 4)  Whiskey - Not enough soldiers/sailors - downsize NDHQ, and reallocate salaries.   ;D
> 5)  Ex-Dragoon - If there are no escorting carriers and a land-based fighter/bomber/cruise missile threat exists, I don't enter the theatre.  I would want complete air dominance before ever putting a vessel with 700 "marines" in harm's way.
> 
> Cheers,
> Matthew.



Matthew:

WRT:
1) If you read Leadmark, the navy has quite correctly pointed out that it's simply no response at all to show up with allies with ability to defend only oneself. Thus, a ship with capabilities beyond that of the CPF is an asset that we can force an enemy to say "Ok ... HMCS XXYY has arrived with TF... we must now alter our plans to deal with the arrival of HMCS XXYY, because she can really hurt us if we're not careful."  It seems to me that is the sort of message to project that we, as NATO, G-8 and otherwise supposedly superior nation, should try to attain. This should not be construed as some sort of a write off of the work done on ops by the CPF's- but the fact is that in the finest tradition and probably the most enduring tradition of the Navy, the missions assigned were completed by the crews in spite of the limitations of the equipment they have to work with. 

2) This ties directly into 1 above ... I think we can do this cheaper and without going AEGIS ... an enemy will have already factored AEGIS into their own plans.. why accommodate them?

3) As part of a coalition, of course a single surface warship could fuel and hopefully resupply off a coalition or contracted AOR. Unlike Ex-D and FSTO, I do however see a role for a twin set of small AOR's in addition to a quad set of improved Protecteur Class. I would also modify FSTO's plan by adding the large AOR's to an fleet auxillary. [i've been a proponent of that for a while- btw FSTO,  am i missing something: how does 4 AOR's equal one on each coast?]

4) WRT numbers of pers: the Navy is really caught here with a quality of life issue. The most practical solution I can think of is to automate as many functions as possible. The problem with that is the retention of skilled trades, which can only be solved by vastly improving quality of life and pay which, IMHO, might be improved to the point where it outpaces civilian competition. Very big $$ no matter which way you slice it. Can's speak to the green guys, they'll weigh in soon enough. I do think that the army will not be very happy if they are crammed like sardines into an LPD or JSS- they have quality of life issues as well, and few [if any] of them signed up or were meant to be stuffed into a floating target.

Cheers.


----------



## FSTO

W-601 - Typo on my part regarding AORs. For sure 2 on each coast.

As for this entire thread, there seems to be very interesting glacial movements coming from NDHQ. Nothing concrete yet, but my contacts say that there will be some surprised faces come this summer.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Matthew:
> 
> WRT:
> 1) If you read Leadmark, the navy has quite correctly pointed out that it's simply no response at all to show up with allies with ability to defend only oneself. Thus, a ship with capabilities beyond that of the CPF is an asset that we can force an enemy to say "Ok ... HMCS XXYY has arrived with TF... we must now alter our plans to deal with the arrival of HMCS XXYY, because she can really hurt us if we're not careful."   It seems to me that is the sort of message to project that we, as NATO, G-8 and otherwise supposedly superior nation, should try to attain. This should not be construed as some sort of a write off of the work done on ops by the CPF's- but the fact is that in the finest tradition and probably the most enduring tradition of the Navy, the missions assigned were completed by the crews in spite of the limitations of the equipment they have to work with.
> 
> 2) This ties directly into 1 above ... I think we can do this cheaper and without going AEGIS ... an enemy will have already factored AEGIS into their own plans.. why accommodate them?
> 
> 3) As part of a coalition, of course a single surface warship could fuel and hopefully resupply off a coalition or contracted AOR. Unlike Ex-D and FSTO, I do however see a role for a twin set of small AOR's in addition to a quad set of improved Protecteur Class. I would also modify FSTO's plan by adding the large AOR's to an fleet auxillary. [i've been a proponent of that for a while- btw FSTO,   am i missing something: how does 4 AOR's equal one on each coast?]
> 
> 4) WRT numbers of pers: the Navy is really caught here with a quality of life issue. The most practical solution I can think of is to automate as many functions as possible. The problem with that is the retention of skilled trades, which can only be solved by vastly improving quality of life and pay which, IMHO, might be improved to the point where it outpaces civilian competition. Very big $$ no matter which way you slice it. Can's speak to the green guys, they'll weigh in soon enough. I do think that the army will not be very happy if they are crammed like sardines into an LPD or JSS- they have quality of life issues as well, and few [if any] of them signed up or were meant to be stuffed into a floating target.
> 
> Cheers.



Thanks again guys....

First I did read Leadmark 2020 a couple of years ago but I don't recall them describing a new vessel (or vessels) that would create an "oh-oh" factor on the part of a potential enemy.

That being said, I agree with that sentiment 100%.

Putting on the shoes of that potential enemy, my "oh-oh" list would rank as follows:
1)   Conventional Aircraft Carrier - Aircraft to provide constant air superiority and CAS as required
2)   Amphibious Carrier - Conventional Aircraft provide air cover, LCAC provide marines to shore, and helicopters provide mobility
3)   Multirole Destroyer/Cruiser (like Arleigh Burke) - Cruise Missiles pose a constant threat of hitting inland while Aegis poses high risk for any opposition aircraft
4)   Long range attack submarine - Opposition Naval Assets as well as Land Structures (cruise missiles) are constantly under threat from stealthy adversary

After that, no single vessel really scares me....(I await correction for an omission   ;D)

What would scare me is a mix of vessels that accomplish some of the same things.   

Here's the question though:   "Are we procuring to be a completely independent battle group or are we procuring to work as part of a coalition of the willing?"

If we are procuring to be a completely independent battle group, everything mentioned above is true and we need our own AAD (although I would argue that a land attack capacity should be built into those vessels).   

However, if we are going to deploy as a coalition of the willing (which makes sense since even in the best case a unilaterally deployed balanced task group won't really carry much of an "oh-oh" factor), I would contend that our traditional allies will be able to bring significant numbers of AAD to any such battle group but will lack the an effective amphibious assault structures (and by that I mean an ability to deploy ground forces from ships and then support them, as opposed to storming the beach).    

In essence, if we recognize that based on our allocated resources that unilaterally we won't scare anyone, does it not make sense to build our structures to focus on improving the overall "oh-oh" factor of coalition task group?   (of note, my answer is yes....)

Thanks again gentlemen.



Matthew.


----------



## Infanteer

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> After that, no single vessel really scares me....(I await correction for an omission   ;D)



SSBN with a handful of SLBM's?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Infanteer said:
			
		

> SSBN with a handful of SLBM's?



See I knew it was coming....



M.   ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> First I did read Leadmark 2020 a couple of years ago but I don't recall them describing a new vessel (or vessels) that would create an "oh-oh" factor on the part of a potential enemy.



Its there...when they refer to the single hull program to replace both CPF and 280s.



> If we are procuring to be a completely independent battle group, everything mentioned above is true and we need our own AAD (although I would argue that a land attack capacity should be built into those vessels).



I think the ground pounder if given a choice would prefer to get to the target safely vice having a diminished air defence suite and a land attack suite.



> However, if we are going to deploy as a coalition of the willing (which makes sense since even in the best case a unilaterally deployed balanced task group won't really carry much of an "oh-oh" factor), I would contend that our traditional allies will be able to bring significant numbers of AAD to any such battle group but will lack the an effective amphibious assault structures (and by that I mean an ability to deploy ground forces from ships and then support them, as opposed to storming the beach).



From my experience our allies prefer we have more assets in place to be able to defend our HVUs and their HVUs. If we can't cover our own warships and auxiliaries not to mention their warships and auxiliaries they have to take up the slack that we cause.

As for your "oh oh" list not even going to touch it.

Infanteer the SSBN with SLBMs scares me too. Kind of reinforces the need for our own sub capability IMO.


----------



## Cloud Cover

WRT a land attack capabilty, is the rather limited bang even worth the buck? I suppose if needed, the Harpoon could fulfill the role, albet in a less effective way the the Tomahawk. I would be greatly surprised if we ever needed the deep penetration capability of the Tomahawk. IIRC, the Harpoon is possesses the requisite precision withour having to add a whole new weapons system. [I recognize the huge difference in payloads] 

Perhaps an armed UAV is a better solution for strikes on land targets from sea based assets.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think Harpoon2 would be the more economical way to go as we would not lose a valuable anti ship missile and if need be we could have a capabilty to engage shore targets without the added cost of an additional weapon system.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Thats the one. {harpoonII}.

IIRC this is also the JDAM weapon can be fired from a torpedo tube, an aircraft, a specially configured truck, certain VLS systems and the standard 4 tube configuration.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Thats the one. {harpoonII}.
> 
> IIRC this is also the JDAM weapon can be fired from a torpedo tube, an aircraft, a specially configured truck, certain VLS systems and the standard 4 tube configuration.



I take it that means it has at least a secondary GPS guidance system?




M.     ???


----------



## Mortar guy

Yeah JDAM and Harpoon II are two very different things.

On another note the Mk41 VLS (which the Tribals have) can fire a weapon called the NTACMS (Naval Tactical Missile System) which is a navalized ATACMS missile the US army and others uses in the MLRS. It has a range of 300km (plus or minus) and can carry bomblets, a unitary warhead or BAT submunitions. Now NTACMS was only ever a prototype but I don't think it would take much to revive the concept.

Also, the SCALP Navale/SCALP EG cruise missiles might be another option we could look at if we don't want to go all out with the TacTom

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mortar Guy I think it would be something worth looking into at least.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> On another note the Mk41 VLS (which the Tribals have) can fire a weapon called the NTACMS (Naval Tactical Missile System) which is a navalized ATACMS missile the US army and others uses in the MLRS. It has a range of 300km (plus or minus) and can carry bomblets, a unitary warhead or BAT submunitions. Now NTACMS was only ever a prototype but I don't think it would take much to revive the concept.
> 
> Also, the SCALP Navale/SCALP EG cruise missiles might be another option we could look at if we don't want to go all out with the TacTom



I don't doubt all this ... the question would therefore turn to whether the cost is worth the effort and in turn, would the effort produce the desired results? This TacTom weapon and related systems are very expensive ...  but if there is a better mousetrap that is cheaper, , then maybe the decision makers are factoring this into their latest plans. [or... not :].


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Which was my reasoning for the Harpoon2...beyond some software and maybe some hardware changes the Halifax class is already fitted for the Harpoon, no reason why the 2 could not be procured.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Which was my reasoning for the Harpoon2...beyond some software and maybe some hardware changes the Halifax class is already fitted for the Harpoon, no reason why the 2 could not be procured.



Ex, out of curiosity for the Tribal/CPF replacement would go to the SM-2 as your base missile or the ESSM and why?

Thanks,




M.


----------



## Mortar guy

Cdn Blackshirt,

I know you're not asking me but I would definitely have to go with the SM2/SM6 family in the Mk41 VLS (Strike Size). The reason for this is that a Canadian TF would be self-sufficient in terms of AAD and we would have a rudimetary counter-TBM capability. Besides with the Mk41 you can still carry ESSM for situations where the air threat is less but you cannot launch SM2 from an ESSM-only launcher (i.e. Mk48). Plus with the Strike Sized Mk 41 (as opposed to the Tactical Sized VLS we have on the Tribals IIRC) you can launch TacTom. Out Tribals could not launch TacTom with their current VLS, if I am not mistaken. 

Regards,

MG


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Cdn Blackshirt,
> 
> I know you're not asking me but I would definitely have to go with the SM2/SM6 family in the Mk41 VLS (Strike Size). The reason for this is that a Canadian TF would be self-sufficient in terms of AAD and we would have a rudimetary counter-TBM capability. Besides with the Mk41 you can still carry ESSM for situations where the air threat is less but you cannot launch SM2 from an ESSM-only launcher (i.e. Mk48). Plus with the Strike Sized Mk 41 (as opposed to the Tactical Sized VLS we have on the Tribals IIRC) you can launch TacTom. Out Tribals could not launch TacTom with their current VLS, if I am not mistaken.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> MG



I know what the SM-2, SM-3 and SM-4 are....but what are the SM-5 and SM-6?




M.   ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Ex, out of curiosity for the Tribal/CPF replacement would go to the SM-2 as your base missile or the ESSM and why?



I would go with the Standards. Why? Range for one. Whats the sense of constantly shooting down missiles with your Sea Sparrow and ESSM when you have a chance to shoot down the platform carrying the missile? Otherwise once the aircraft is refueled and rearmed and the crew has their Timmies they can have another go at you. That is if you are still afloat. :/

With Standards if you have anyone ashore or are escoring any other unit you can protect them. Sea Sparrow is a Point defense missile which means good for protection of your own unit. ESSM is a little better with range but you would run into the same problem.


----------



## Mortar guy

SM6 is also known as the ERAM (Extended Range Active Missile) which is a further development of the SM2 Block IV missile. It uses an active seeker from the AMRAAM missile and various other improvements. The US Navy will eventually replace its SM2 IV with the SM6 so it would make sense for us to do the same.

Here is some info on SM6 http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-6.htm


MG


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Very cool....

Thanks guys.



Matthew.


----------



## NavyShooter

Hey gang,

So we seem to be running around capabilities and makeup of an ideal fleet of ships that I don't personally think we'll ever see.

I'm going to suggest something, and it might scare you, but I do not really think that the Canadian Navy is going to end up buying a whole fleet of new ships.

What's likely to happen is that we'll get some sort of bastardized together multi-role tanker and troop transport that is ideal for neither role.

The CPF's are not likely to be replaced anytime soon, and the 280's will most likely be replaced hull for hull with the above multi-role ship.

The Navy will likely have to make do with the ESSM's mounted on CPF's, and whatever self-defense armament (Most likely CIWS) would be fitted to the Transports/AOR.  

I don't think that there's a political will to create a Canadian Amphibious warfare group designed to go into harm's way.  There is no precedent in the past decade for the need of that either.  The transports will be there to bring Canadian Strykers/Trucks/AVGPs, etc into a friendly/controlled port where they can be safely unloaded.  

And y'know what?  We'll carry on thanking our lucky stars to still have a military, and our jobs, and we'll make do with whatever the government gives us, just like we always do.  The tools are not ideal, but we make do with what we have.

I guess I'm getting cynical now, but that's just the way I see it....

However, all that said, in an ideal world, yes, a new AAW ship with AEGIS capability would be a good thing, getting a couple for each coast, plus a command ship, plus AOR's, plus the Amphibious ships would be great....and having the ability to support our troopies ashore with NGS either missile or gun, plus provide AAW cover for them, that'd be awesome.  But then reality sets in, and I know that would all just be a pipe dream.

NavyShooter


----------



## Mortar guy

I don't disagree with you at all Shooter but I just have a few points:

1) It doesn't have to be AEGIS. There are other (cheaper) options out there that are almost as capable. We (Canada) took part in the development of the APAR which was once planned to be the new radar for the CPFs as part of their mid-life upgrade. Another option would be SEAPAR which is a lighter smaller version of APAR. Either of these radars could be used in new ships to keep the costs down.

2) It doesn't have to be a friggin huge Arleigh Burke DDG. For some reason, whenever people talk about the CADRE project they immediately think of the Arleigh Burke or DDX (i.e. 9,000 tons displacement) sized ships the Yanks have/will have. These ships are massive and are more like mini-cruisers than destroyers. Rather than the 120% solution, maybe we need something more like our allies that is not as big and is therefore cheaper. The UK Type 45; Spanish F-100; German F124; and French/Italian Horizon classes are all examples of smaller ships (5,000-7,500 tons) with phased array radars and VLS missiles that would fit the bill nicely.

3) The ship does not have to be the jack of all trades. If the new JSS can carry 4 helicopters (vice 3 for Protecteur), does the CADRE ship really need to be able to operate 2 helicopters? Also, if the JSS has good C2 and lots of room for staff etc., do we really need to have a C2 capability in CADRE? I would say no to both these things. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to design large, expensive, do-it-all ships  when smaller, cheaper ships will do the trick.

4) A Canadian amphibious capability does not mean we need a whole ESG with and LHD/LPD/LSD trio. All we need is one (maybe two but lets not get ahead of ourselves) amphibious ship of the size/type of the British Albion. Think about it - we don't have a big enough army to be forming and sustaining amphibious task groups of that size. Right now our army is geared towards sustaining two Battle Groups on operations at any one time. So, that means that we couldn't fill more than two of these ships at any one time without the government mobilizing the militia! Therefore, the most likely scenario is that our one LPD will be used to ferry kit to theatres (like Bonaventure in the good ol' days). Or, a less likely scenario would see us putting a small Battle Group on this ship and floating it around the north atlantic or medditeranean waiting for something to happen. Anyway, all this to say that maybe we don't need a very big amphibious capability.

Thar ye be! The $0.02 of an Army guy about Navy stuff.

Alex


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Have to disagree with you on quite a few of your points Navy Shooter.
 The single hull surface combatant project is still being discussed and with the new talk about more and more of a littoral role for the navy will most likely be implemented, unfortunately not for quite some time. Within the nextr couple of years I have no doubts this will be implemented.

Mortar guy there is no CADRE program. CADRE got too big and too expensive to continue. All the good stuff from CADRE was carried over into the the new surface combatant program you will see implemented (ideally) around 2015-2020. Alos why would you bring a JSS for flagship duties when one is not required. A warship designed for it is better for the job and more appropriate not to mention more economical for the tasking.


----------



## NCRCrow

The US will never give us AEGIS technology in 10 x pi years. Ask the Japanese and Taiwan, they asked and were refused.

We are still hammering out bugs in our own CCS. Aegis training would be another 20 years.

I think we bought APAR.

I know Thailand is looking to sell its pocket carrier (multi-role) the Chakri Nareubet, lets take that and make it better. It would be perfect for the Joint dream.

Crow


----------



## Cloud Cover

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> The US will never give us AEGIS technology in 10 x pi years. Ask the Japanese and Taiwan, they asked and were refused.



The Japanese Kongo class is an improved  AEGIS platform.*

In addition to that, South Korea is building a class of AEGIS destroyers, and Australia will probably build or buy AEGIS.   As for Canada, it's a question of trust ... why would the US permit a country like Canada to have such a system if we are not willing to use it to defend our own airspace. [think TBMD and BMD] 

*For example, see hazegray [sorry for not linking, but Andy does not like deep linking to his site.]


----------



## STONEY

One would think that if Norway, Spain, Japan, Korea & Australia can aquire Aegis that Canada wouldn't have any problem being able to get it also. Weather our beloved Gov. thinks we could afford it, is another question.  Methinks a vessel like the German f124 AAW frigate would more suit our budget.

As for APAR , even though Canada was one of the countries developing it , has not aquired it because it can't be fitted to our ships as it makes them too topheavy affecting stability. Smart move huh!!! spending money developing something we can't use. Maybe the Tribal replacement, if we ever get it will have it, need i say the F-124 has APAR, SM-2,ESSM, HARPOON etc.

Has anyone noted that the Amphibious Assault Carrier HMS Ocean was built for a cost comparable to that of a Type-23 Frigate, carry's 800 troops, assault helo's, helo gunships , vehicle's, artillery etc. has side and stern loading ramps and its own landing barges. One could have 3 or 4 of them for the price of 1 SanAntonio class vessel.

In any case we must keep in mind that if DND decided today to fast track any of the options discussed on this tread it would be well into the next decade before they became fact. In Any race with DND prorcurment lets face it the snail would win.

Cheers


----------



## NCRCrow

I stand corrected on the AEGIS countries, but regardless Canada will never recieve AEGIS technology. 


I still like the idea of Canada purchasing a pocket carrier from another country. 

Lets buy it, modify and go!

and no leases please!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I stand corrected on the AEGIS countries, but regardless Canada will never recieve AEGIS technology.



Is that a certainity based on fact or an opinion?


----------



## NCRCrow

An informed opinion.........based on 12 years of sea time/training.

I am a child of Paramax and Unysis CCS through training in Montreal (CPF) and watched the bungled CCS-330(Tribal) upgrades and band-aids throughout the 90's and the early millennium. (I have sailed on both classes)

The money and commitment already put into these projects (CCS) is enormous. 

Canada would have to cut it's losses and establish AEGIS infrastructure and training.($$$)

Reconfigure the entire ship sensors and weapon systems. ($$$)

Massive combat trials and recertification. ($$$) (more Standards/Sparrows/Harpoons away) (not a bad idea)($$$$)

There goes our 13 billion dollar budget. The Airforce and the Army would snap.

It will not happen before 2020.

Crow


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> There goes our 13 billion dollar budget. The Airforce and the Army would snap.



LOL maybe just a little.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I am looking for a few of the articles mentioned in the piece reproduced below. I especially like the comparisons between the BB and the DDX or even a carrier in the Reilly article. Whatever the Canadian Navy does in the future with respect to new warships and supporting the troops ashore, there are precious gems in these articles that are important to all of the services. If anything, I am now more in favour of a minimum 5" NGS gun on the new frigates and destroyers, along with land attack missiles of some variety. [if the ships are ever built]   

*The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Dread not the DD(X)*By James G. Zumwalt
Published July 7, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have followed with interest the debate in The Washington Times sparked by Rear Adm. Charles S. Hamilton's article on the June 13 Op-Ed page on the need for the Navy to focus on getting the DD(X), the next generation destroyer, out into the fleet rather than bringing back our nation's two remaining serviceable battleships, vessels historically referred to as "dreadnoughts." 
      Adm. Hamilton's article was criticized by James O'Bryon (June 17) and Dennis Reilly (June 21), both of whom tout perceived advantages of the battleship over DD(X) technologies. 
      I have a personal interest in the DD(X) as this new class of warship will be named after my late father, Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. Accordingly, I feel it appropriate to assess the Zumwalt Class DD(X) from the same perspective as would he. After all, in 1966 my father was the Navy's first director of Systems Analysis and was responsible for analyzing competing weaponry systems to ensure the Navy got the biggest bang for its buck. His honest assessments, regardless of the politics involved, earned him both respect and criticism. Time eventually proved his assessments right. 
      I sense Adm. Hamilton, in similarly providing an honest, albeit unpopular (in view of the battleship's popular "mystique"), assessment of the DD(X) versus the battleship, is suffering such criticism but that time will prove him right as well. 
      A comprehensive systems analysis approach to this issue involves weighing numerous cost factors -- hidden as well as directly related to hard costs of a battleship's modernization. 
      The defense budget's costliest element is manpower. An Iowa Class battleship requires a 1,500-member crew. That many sailors could man 10 DD(X) destroyers. No one on active duty in the Navy is trained to operate a battleship's steam plant, weapons and fire-control systems. Training personnel to do so would involve a costly expansion of the Navy's school system. 
      There are limited shipyard facilities capable of handling larger warships like battleships and carriers. Reactivating the former would greatly impair maintenance support of the latter absent additional funds for expanding the facilities. 
      The battleship is a single-mission ship, with no viable anti-air or antisubmarine capability. Unlike the DD(X), which has a multiple mission capability and can operate independently, battleships require escort ships to defend them against those threats. 
      The battleship is particularly susceptible to targeting. Its very noisy propulsion plant, its sheer size and the additional escort ships would make it easy to locate. The DD(X), with its quiet propulsion system, stealth technology and ability to operate independently, would be much more difficult to target. 
      The battleship is the most heavily armored warship afloat. As such, it could survive hits from conventional guns along the armor belt positioned on the sides of the ship; but such armor is not optimally positioned for hits above that belt. 
      Reactivation of the Iowa Class battleships exceeded $2 billion in the 1980s. Reactivating two battleships today, updating radars and communications, procuring spare parts from firms no longer making them, and training crews would probably cost more than $2 billion per ship. 
      While modernization and conversion is possible, it would take time, involve great cost and leave unchanged certain aspects of these battleships -- e.g., their inefficient oil-burning propulsion plants and the large number of personnel necessary to man their engineering departments. 
      With the global war on terrorism stretching our defense dollars thin, we must now, more than ever, maximize our return. Funds must be spent in a manner most capable of cost-effectively addressing the Navy's future long-term needs. Putting them into a short-term naval gunfire support (NGFS) solution, such as battleships, is unresponsive to this requirement. 
      Thirty-five years ago, the Navy faced a similar situation. Tough decisions were needed on how best to spend defense dollars on short- and long-term needs while the Vietnam War drained limited funds. As head of the Navy at that time, my father decided to retire older ships early to fund new ones -- opting to address the Navy's long-term needs to counter a growing Soviet threat to U.S. control of the seas. 
      As U.S. control of the seas face future Chinese challenges, we must meet that long-term threat as well as the short-term need for NGFS. The DD(X) program will do exactly that. 
        
      James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam wars, is a contributor to The Washington Times. 


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Battleship misinformation
By Dennis Reilly
Published July 14, 2005*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Zumwalt's July 7 Commentary "Dread not the DD(X)" could not have been more aptly named. As was stated in my June 21 Op-Ed, "Battling for battleships," the Navy's misguided effort to develop the DD(X) is effectively dead. Our purpose here is to correct misstatements regarding the battleship, presumably obtained from the Navy. 
      Mr. Zumwalt appears unaware that his famed father was a proponent, not an opponent, of battleship reactivation during his tenure. 
      Contrary to the Zumvalt article, Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton did not provide "an honest ... assessment of the DD(X) versus the battleship," as is clear from James O'Bryon's June 17 Op-Ed, "Distortions about ships." A document, now under review by the Government Accountability Office (www.usnfsa.org), presents a side-by-side comparison of official Navy claims with detailed rebuttal by U.S. Naval Fire Support Association. 
      The article implies that the battleship would be vulnerable. The latest Rolling Airframe Missiles provide competent anti-air/anti-missile protection to our carriers, and even destroyers. Modernization of the battleships would surely include this protection. The battleship's deck and turret armor, not just the belt, as claimed in the article, were designed to and proven to take hits. Should a weapon get through, no other ship would have a greater chance of remaining operational. 
      But, one has to ask why, in a high-threat environment, would not a battleship, like a carrier, be entitled to its own battlegroup with overlapping protections against threats from above and below the sea surface. After all, within the range of its guided projectiles (near-term 52 miles, midterm 115 miles, long-term 450 to 600 miles) the battleship has firepower comparable to that of a carrier. But unlike the carrier, the battleship's firepower is all-weather with tactical response times. Because its projectiles are immune to anti-aircraft defenses, the Hanoi Hilton problem disappears.         

The Navy has failed in its attempt to discredit the battleship's firepower potential, so it has turned its attention to the cost and availability of manpower. The rational way to discuss costs of any weapons system is in terms of costs per unit of firepower. 
      It would take 19 DD(X)s to put the same number of pounds on target per minute (at the Marine Corps' near-term goal of 52 miles range) as can a single battleship. The 1,100-man battleship crew with a $1.5 billion modernization and reactivation cost will be doing the work of the 1,900 men manning 19 DD(X)s costing a whopping total of $32 billion to build (at the unrealizable congressionally mandated $1.7 billion per copy). Would not the $30 billion savings pay for crew training and reconstitution of the spare parts, ammunition, and support infrastructure trashed by the Navy, with some of this in clear violation of the law, (PL104-106)?         

The battleship's boilers are fired by "diesel fuel marine," not oil, as stated in the Commentary article. It uses the same power plant and the same fuel as the AOE-1 fast supply ships that support our carriers today. Presumably, AOE-1 ships will be replaced by the gas-turbine-powered T-AOE(X). There is wonderful synergy going on here. This would free up a considerable pool of sailors who would be quite familiar with the battleship's propulsion system, answering another manpower issue cited by the Navy. 
      Contrary to the article, the battleships would be far from single mission platforms. They would, in the near term: 1) meet the Marine Corps' near-term requirements for naval surface support; 2) be an extremely effective anti terrorist platform in the Pacific littorals because of their unique capability to obliterate training camps before the "students" could disperse; and 3) serve as deterrent to Chinese adventurism in Taiwan, and North Korea's threat to the South. On the longer term, the battleship's long-range guided projectiles could open a new strategic and tactical dimension, with guided ballistic projectiles arching over uncooperative states to reach targets many hundreds of miles away in a matter of minutes. 
      The Navy has made decisions that there never again will be a need for forced entry by the sea, and invasions, should they be called for, will be accomplished by audacious 50-to-100 mile incursions using the unproven V22 "Osprey" tilt-rotor aircraft. The Navy suggests that fire support will be provided by $500,000 per-copy cruise missiles and by the (endangered) aircraft-launched Joint Standoff Weapon, a GPS-guided gliding bomb of comparable cost. 
      The slow speeds of these weapons compared to battleship-launched projectiles result in inadequate tactical response times and vulnerability to antiaircraft defenses, severely limiting the viability of this form of fire support. The costs per round are more than 10 times that of the tactically responsive, anti-aircraft-fire-immune,battleship-launched guided projectile.         

What in the world can the Navy be thinking? As detailed in June Op-Ed, "Battleships fit for Duty," they do not even recognize the real strategic threats we face. The Marine Corps generals (Semper Fidelis?) dare not contradict their Navy bosses. It is time for Congress to impose some rational supervision. 
        
      Dennis Reilly, a physicist, serves as science adviser to the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

While nothing matches of firepower a battleship brings to the battle its still only one ship.....I notice Dennis Reilley all but scorning the DDX, saying it would take 19 to equal an _Iowa_. Ok maybe so, but at the end of the day that is _19_ more ships you can task elsewhere. The versatility for the variety of missions you may have for them is tremendous whereas you only have 1 or 2 battleships. The DDX(s) will already be there as escorts for either the ESG or as part as the CVBG. With the battleships being brought in (in the 80s they were organized into SAGs (Surface Action Groups) IIRC), it may take some time before they can be deployed. Sorry, but me personally I think the battleships gave honourable service but its time to let go of them. Completely and totally.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yes, they were called SAGS, and they were  a sight to behold from the view of our tiny little IRE's. But, we had more beer on our ship than they had in their whole SAG. 8)   

I think what is Reilly is driving at, by the nature of his affilliation with the USNFGA, is the unsurpassed role of NGS with the all weather capability afforded by the platform [which is a little questionable]. I think there are elements in the USN who are convinced that there really is no other solution to the "pounds on target" problem than the battleship. Clearly, this is not a classic naval ship on ship problem, but more of a Marine Corps requirement - although I am told there are many documented examples of the battle wagons being totally ineffective.      

What I really, really like about the articles is the explicit recognition on both sides of the continued long term need need for NGS for even the most sophisticated navy in the world. This is a capability which I would argue Canada must regain if there are any serious plans at all about conducting land operations close to the shoreline.  Gunfire is cheaper by far than missiles, and a ship can carry many more 5" rounds than missiles- although missiles are still a necessity as well.   There is also something to be said for the pleasure of being aboard ship on the NGS range and bustin' caps all day long at old pick up trucks. Many, many, custom made ashtrays flood the market after that.  

I am very surprised at the price tag of the DDX - that is a lot of money per copy so they must be getting a lot of bang for the buck.  I hope our projects on the horizon are not that expensive, but just as capable.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

With Joint Ops being the Drink of the Day, then regaining NGS shouls be a priority. Our biggest gun in our naval inventory (76 mm Oto Melara) is not designed for NGS and as whiskey has pointed out you want at least a 5". 
  Another idea we might want to consider is the project the German navy had a couple of years ago where they mounted a 155mm howitzer turret from a PZH2000 SPG to on of the new Brandenburg class FFGs. As far as I remember the test was a success. Maybe we should try the same with our surplus M109s.


----------



## NavyShooter

Hey Ex,

I think I tried to start something on the idea of adding a vehicle type weapons turret to a CPF to add a land attack capability for NGS.

I was leaning towards a 120mm Automatic mortar system I believe, max range of about 12 Km, and the place to put it would have been one of the hangar wings, lose part of the torpedo storage on one side or the other (honestly, do we need that many torps?) and it would provide an additional capability with only a partial loss of what we have now.

Just an idea, but hey, it'd be better than what we have now.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Interesting idea NS...but that means an additional weapon system that we would have to establish doctrine on, buy and train people on. Other then that I would thing that could be a very versatile system. What of this approach? Seeing how some ships don't sale with an Air Det, what if we put a temporary mount for a 155mm M109 turrent on the flight deck? Seeing how we already have them in the system and it would be an increase in range as well. We could remove the torpedoes and keep the charges in one magazine and the projectiles in the other.


----------



## NavyShooter

I was leaning towards the 120 type mount because it gives quite good range for the size of weapon.  Also, the footprint of the weapons system on the ship could be limited to the rear portion of one of the torpedo mags.  You'd still be able to carry the tubes, and the torps in the other mag (transfer them over when you need to load/fire the tubes) but with a 120 up top, and the space below, you'd be able to fit a HUGE amount of ammo in there.  Heck, you could even do palletized loadouts, making it a REAL easy system to ammo/de-ammo!

The bonus that you wouldn't lose the helo capability would be the deciding factor I think.  Losing the helo when you're in a situation where NGS is needed means you've lost a huge extension of your ship's detection bubble.  

The ability to maintain helo ops while doing NGS would mean that you could also be a platform for medevac/etc if needed.

Another big concern would be the recoil impulse.  An M-109 has a significant amount of it, and mounting just the turret on the flight deck would probably not work out so well (understood not through the deck, but on top of it)....the 120 mortar would have significantly less recoil, and you wouldn't screw up your flight deck certification either.  (Probably have to do a re-cert every time it was mounted/fired, and check for recoil damage.)

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover

Would this mortar be something that is snap in and snap out, plug and play etc? If so, would it be a good system to make provisions for on arctic sovereignty ships which can land troops up on some the northern islands? [an idea I have been toying with]


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Another big concern would be the recoil impulse.  An M-109 has a significant amount of it, and mounting just the turret on the flight deck would probably not work out so well (understood not through the deck, but on top of it)....the 120 mortar would have significantly less recoil, and you wouldn't screw up your flight deck certification either.  (Probably have to do a re-cert every time it was mounted/fired, and check for recoil damage.)



Good point on the recoil and flight deck...I guess thats why you are the tech and I am the operator. 

I would like to see some sort of extended range munitions developed for the weapon as well.


----------



## x-grunt

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Would this mortar be something that is snap in and snap out, plug and play etc?


When you metinoned this, I immediately thought of the MCDV's modular payload system, I can imagine having 120 mortars mounted on them and in essence creating a coastal gunboat squadron on the cheap. I do not know anything about structural issues that may be involved, but it's a thought.


----------



## Cloud Cover

On the quarterdeck?


----------



## x-grunt

I would assume so, yes. That's the location of modular payload bay, according to the DND site. I don't really know much about the vessel's capabilities (yet) but it seems possible from the little I know.


----------



## NavyShooter

Part of the issue with loading these up on an MCDV might be the stabilization.

I don't believe that MCDV's have a gyro that puts out all the correct H/P/R signals for gun stabilization (I could be wrong on this one, if someone knows, correct me)

Also, the platform size for stability/accuracy is an issue, not to mention speed.

However, that said, the MCDV has a shallower draft, and would be able to work in closer than a CPF, so that's a definite advantage too.

The other consideration is survivability.  A CPF is a larger, more survivable platform against potential return fire.  An MCDV doesn't have much going for it on that front.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Merged for NGS continuity.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You know whats ironic in the NGS issue? Its the fact that Peru has one of the best units to conduct shore support...the old light cruiser_ Almirante Grau  _ with her 6 inch guns.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> However, that said, the MCDV has a shallower draft, and would be able to work in closer than a CPF, so that's a definite advantage too.
> 
> The other consideration is survivability.  A CPF is a larger, more survivable platform against potential return fire.  An MCDV doesn't have much going for it on that front.



Maybe the OPV that the Navy was talking about last year might be a good platform for a 120mm auto mortar system.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe the OPV that the Navy was talking about last year might be a good platform for a 120mm auto mortar system.



Have you seen the video of the AMOS turret firing from a light patrol vessel?



M.


----------



## Mortar guy

I hate to be a nay-sayer but a Mortar on a ship doesn't make any sense to me - especially a CPF-sized ship. The max range of 120mm mortars is not much more than 10km (most are around 9km). This means that if you want to provide NGS to a force ashore you must be _very_ close to the shore. Having a CPF sitting 3-4km off the beach will not make too many sailors happy and providing fire only 6-7km inland won't make too many soldiers happy.

I think the best option for our Navy would be the navalised version of the MLRS rockets or the NTACMS version of the ATACMS missile. Both can be fired from the Mk41 VLS on the Tribals so it would be a cheap and effective way for the Navy to get long range precision NGS capabilities.

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I think the best option for our Navy would be the navalised version of the MLRS rockets or the NTACMS version of the ATACMS missile. Both can be fired from the Mk41 VLS on the Tribals so it would be a cheap and effective way for the Navy to get long range precision NGS capabilities.



Considering a 280 only has 29 cells for SM2s are you sure you want to cut down on your Task Groups Air Defence capability? Protecting your troops and their transportation I think has a higher priority.


----------



## Mortar guy

Protect them from what? The air threat in most conceivable situations where we would be supporting troops ashore is not high. I am not suggesting that the Tribals would not carry any Standards, they would just carry fewer of them to make way for about a dozen NTACMS or the like. In a perfect world, the 'big honking ship' that Gen Hillier is talking about would also have Mk41 VLS cells so it could provide its own fire support with NTACMS etc. I know the LPD-17 class are fitted as such and that one option for the 'big honking ship' was to purchase a LPD-17 so maybe this idea isn't too far-fetched.

Another option, which would be incredibly simple for us to do, would be to upgrade to the Harpoon Block II which has a limited land attack capability. This would allow the CPFs to provide at least some precision fire against shore targets.

Regards,

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would prefer the Harpoon II vice losing some of my 29 SM2s.


----------



## NCRCrow

air threat not high...just ask the pompous, confident Kippers and the Argentine Super Entandard/Exocet lethal combo.

Goose Green out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

With so little SM2s I would rather not take the chance, so I whole heartedly disagree. Lets not forget how many RN ships went down.


----------



## Mortar guy

I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased  

MG


----------



## aesop081

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased
> 
> MG



Do you have a magic crystal ball that says we will always deploy our ships to places like haiti, east timor,somalia....?   Do you not think that the Korean peninsula would possibly require maximum AD assests for a naval task group deployed there ?   What about east timor...i'm sure if the indonesian government had been beligerent, alot of SM2's would have been nice to have ( in case you didnt know the indonesian air force is rather well equiped) !   The effectiveness of a naval formation depends on its ability to control everything within its area, surface, subsurface and in the air.   As mentioned, the argentine air/naval air forces gave the royal navy a serious bloody nose with only a few exocets ( and relatively little training in its employement and no support) and elderly skyhawks armed with conventional bombs.   Its not going to take a very powerful nation to send a CPF to the bottom if we let our guard down


----------



## Inch

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased
> 
> MG



So let me see if I get this right, you want to use a 1/2 million dollar missile to blow up a shanty in Haiti when you storm ashore with your mortar?

Somebody make this man a General! That's bloody brilliant.


----------



## Mortar guy

I see Inch is a graduate of the passive-aggressive school of sarcasm for little girls. Someone make that man a Capt for life! 

Just pulling your leg Inch but I think you missed what I was saying. I am not advocating giving up AD all together. All I am saying is that we could have a long range, precision NGS capability very soon with the ships we have (if we wanted to). There is absolutely no need to swap all 29 SM-2s for 29 of some land attack missile. Even 6 NTACMS would be enough to make a serious impact on our potential adversaries. Combine that with a few Harpoon Blaock IIs off a CPF and a heliborne infantry force off the 'big honking ship' and all of a sudden a Canadian TF on a coast is something people will have to pay attention to.

As for your comment aesop - yes I have a crystal ball. Its called the Defence Policy Statement and it says that high intensity conflicts (i.e. big war in Korea) will not be our bag any more. Add to that the numerous presentations I have seen from the CDS Actions Teams and the CDS himself on our future capabilities and I can say with a great deal of certainty that we will not be sending our TFs up against swarms for Chinese Su-30s or Korean MiG-19s any time soon. And besides, even if we do, I am sure the Navy would be smart enough to load the Tribals out with SM-2s. This is what confused me about your post - do you really think that the Navy would send a Tribal into a theatre (Indonesia in your example) where the air threat is high armed only with land attack missiles? You know that the Mk-41 can be unloaded and re-loaded as required, right? So, when you're going into an area where the air threat is high, you max out with SM-2. But, if the threat is low (much more likely), then it would make sense to carry land-attack missiles. That's all I'm sayin.

MG


----------



## aesop081

Mortar guy,

I was at some of the same presentations you were ( maybe not the same location) and listen to the same grand ideas.  But i think that high-intensity conflicts will not be our bag until one comes up that we are stuck with fighting.  No one expected to fight another war after WW2 and then we were in korea. After the Korean war, dogfights were considered a thing of the past, then Vietnam came along.  The CDS asside, no plan ever survise first contact with the enemy ( have we told them that high-intensity ops are not our thing anymore)


----------



## Inch

Alright, I see what you're getting at and I'll admit I agree with you.

Passive-agressive school of sarcasm for little girls? That put a smile on my face, thanks.    ;D


----------



## NCRCrow

the air threat is from a asymetrical small planes or UAV's (see Palestine (Hezabollah) invading Israeli airspace). (Can u believe that!! with its Patriot Systems always burnin and churin!)

Or what about the threat of this little ill equipped countries having some old HY-2, STYX's sittin around a warehouse.

An amphib carrier would be well advised to be able to defend itself from short/long range SSM threat with some Tribal Power or a itself.


----------



## Mortar guy

> Passive-agressive school of sarcasm for little girls? That put a smile on my face, thanks.



No problem. Not only am I a graduate myself, I am also the President and CEO.  8)

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I tend to lean towards a gun (nothing smaller then a 5 inch)and Harpoon IIs. that way we have something for short and long range support. Might be a start to get the basics down again before we can consider trying for the big league stuff.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just an add on. I was looking at the 5 inch /62 caliber mod 4 that the USN are putting on the _Arleigh Burkes _ and the _Ticonderogas_. The new EX 171 ERGM (Extended Range Guided Munition) will have a range of around 60 miles with an effective rate of fire of 16-20 rounds a minute. Although the gun would be useless for AAW and AMD, it would be great to have for ASuW and the NGS roles.


----------



## hugh19

Hey I am just a NESOP, but can you explain AMD. Its not a acronym I am familiar with. (not a heckle just curious)


----------



## NavyShooter

I would still lean towards a mortar or gun option.

The unit cost per amount of HE on target for a Mortar/gun vs Missile is way off....what does a block II Harpoon carry?  A few hundred pounds of HE?  What does it cost?  How many mortar rounds or gun rounds can you buy for that money instead?

How many Harpoons has the CF Fired in practice?  How many mortar rounds could we fire in practice for the same price??

Certainly there are Extended range projectiles available for 120mm mortar systems, but even if they cost double what a regular round does (just guessing) I would think that it would still be a less expensive option than missiles.

NavyShooter


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yes but with a 5 inch/62 and a Harpoon II they would have multiple uses. We could still engage ships and shore targets. While we could I suppose do the same with a 120mm mortar I doubt it would have the same accuracy and reliabilty in a surface engagement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I would still lean towards a mortar or gun option.
> 
> The unit cost per amount of HE on target for a Mortar/gun vs Missile is way off....what does a block II Harpoon carry?   A few hundred pounds of HE?   What does it cost?   How many mortar rounds or gun rounds can you buy for that money instead?
> 
> How many Harpoons has the CF Fired in practice?   How many mortar rounds could we fire in practice for the same price??
> 
> Certainly there are Extended range projectiles available for 120mm mortar systems, but even if they cost double what a regular round does (just guessing) I would think that it would still be a less expensive option than missiles.
> 
> NavyShooter



Was looking at the Harpoon II and it carries 215 lbs of High Explosives, I am not mortar qualified but I don't think that a 120mm can come close to that. I looked up the M121 Mortar in US service and it only has a range of 7200m. I think even if we could bring that up to 10 miles which I am sure can be done, you don't have the stand off distance that a gun and missile combo has.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

sledge said:
			
		

> Hey I am just a NESOP, but can you explain AMD. Its not a acronym I am familiar with. (not a heckle just curious)


Thanks sledge...brain fart I meant ASMD.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok,

Found a site with some numbers.

New Precision guided mortar rounds run between $10-20,000 each.

Each round contains between 2-3 KG of HE.  Worst case, 2 KG.  That's at least 4.4 Pounds of HE per round.  That means it would take 48 rounds of 120mm mortar ammo to equal the HE delivery of a Harpoon II.

Worst case cost on 48 rounds of guided mortar ammo is $960,000  How much does a Harpoon block II cost?  Probably pretty similar in price.

The M395 PGMM (Precision guided Mortar Munition) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm  is hoped to have an eventual range of 12-15 KM.

I think that the 12-15KM range is enough to make this a practical system, especially when used as a ground support system in litorral operations.  

Now, that said, having a deep strike capability from some HII's would be a good augmentation of the auto-mortar, but I think that relying on just one or the other may not be the best way to go.

NavyShooter


----------



## Cloud Cover

But what if the fire mission does not call for the payload of the Harpoon? A precision guided mortar round could probably disable an APC with a hit on the top.  Really, the mortar would not take up a lot of room, and a fair amount of ammunition could be carried in a small space [relative to the space for a single Harpoon.]

My vote [if I had one] is for a ship with all three weapons- mortar, harpoon and 5". The green guys callling for support would then have a full range of options from which to choose. 

Why include the mortar with the 5"? ... the plunging effect of the mortar is apparently very difficult to replicate with the 5" at short range. 

Also, the mortar can be used for smoke, and possibly gas rounds. [and, so could the 5"] 

A ship with 2- 5" guns [single mounts fore and aft], 2 auto loading 120mm mortars [perhaps a twin barrelled configuration located midship] and 32 or more VLS Harpoons for support ashore would be a pretty good weapons system -especially if equipped with a counter battery system as well.  

And, what if the mortar system could be disassembled and brought ashore by helo as the troops move inland?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> Found a site with some numbers.
> 
> New Precision guided mortar rounds run between $10-20,000 each.
> 
> Each round contains between 2-3 KG of HE.   Worst case, 2 KG.   That's at least 4.4 Pounds of HE per round.   That means it would take 48 rounds of 120mm mortar ammo to equal the HE delivery of a Harpoon II.
> 
> Worst case cost on 48 rounds of guided mortar ammo is $960,000   How much does a Harpoon block II cost?   Probably pretty similar in price.
> 
> The M395 PGMM (Precision guided Mortar Munition) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm   is hoped to have an eventual range of 12-15 KM.
> 
> I think that the 12-15KM range is enough to make this a practical system, especially when used as a ground support system in litorral operations.
> 
> Now, that said, having a deep strike capability from some HII's would be a good augmentation of the auto-mortar, but I think that relying on just one or the other may not be the best way to go.
> 
> NavyShooter





> But what if the fire mission does not call for the payload of the Harpoon? A precision guided mortar round could probably disable an APC with a hit on the top.  Really, the mortar would not take up a lot of room, and a fair amount of ammunition could be carried in a small space [relative to the space for a single Harpoon.]
> 
> My vote [if I had one] is for a ship with all three weapons- mortar, harpoon and 5". The green guys callling for support would then have a full range of options from which to choose.
> 
> Why include the mortar with the 5"? ... the plunging effect of the mortar is apparently very difficult to replicate with the 5" at short range.
> 
> Also, the mortar can be used for smoke, and possibly gas rounds. [and, so could the 5"]
> 
> A ship with 2- 5" guns [single mounts fore and aft], 2 auto loading 120mm mortars [perhaps a twin barrelled configuration located midship] and 32 or more VLS Harpoons for support ashore would be a pretty good weapons system -especially if equipped with a counter battery system as well.
> 
> And, what if the mortar system could be disassembled and brought ashore by helo as the troops move inland?



Multirole/purpose seems to be something the CF strives for. What would be a secondary use for a 120 mm for naval combat? You may be lucky and be able to engage a small surface craft and you may do some damage against another warship, but you cannot use it to shoot down missiles or aircraft.

Another point....who else uses the 120 mm in naval warfare? Its a whole new doctrine we would have to work on before implementing into full use. While it might be useful to have another capability, I think the new ERGM for the 5 inch that I mentioned above carries 72 sub munitions which I think would take care of the plunging fire that whiskey brought up only on a much bigger foot print.


----------



## Mortar guy

I have to agree with Ex-Dragoon on this one - as a Mortarman who thinks the Mortar is the greatest weapon ever invented. Nonetheless, even a 120mm mortar would be next to useless on a ship. Their range is far too short unless your enemy is kind enough to array all their kit and troops right on the beach itself! There are other technical problems to deal with as well. As several people have rightly pointed out - no one has mounted a 120mm on a ship the size of the Halifax class for NGS. Doing so would mean we would incur a lot of developmental costs and would only gain a weapon system of very, very limited capability. Also, mortar rounds are not terribly accurate and are very susceptible to high winds (like you would find at sea, for example). Why go to all the trouble of mounting a weapon of such limited capabilities on our ships when better options exist?

If you are really concerned about the cost of the shell and volume of fire, why not just modify the fire control software of the 57mm gun and 76mm gun on the CPFs/Tribals to fire NGS. Both have a much higher rate of fire than mortars as well as a much longer range (17km/16km resptectively). The next easiest mods we could make to our ships to allow them to engage targets on shore would be, as we have already discussed, to upgrade systems to fire Harpoon Block II or equip the Tribals with NTACMS. Finally, the most difficult thing we could do would be to retrofit new weapons on our ships such as the 5" guns or mortars.

MG


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok,

Stepping up to the 5" for a new platform makes sense.

However, trying to retrofit a larger gun to the CPF's does not make sense, the recoil would simply shake them to pieces.  (If you've ever been up in 1/2/7/8 mess, you know what I mean.)

The rebuild needed to include a larger gun would be prohibitive I think....the amount of structural support needed?  Lots.  Additionally, the 57 was purchased partly because it has no through-deck penetration (except for the feed hoists)  Most 5" systems need a LOT of space below decks that a CPF cannot spare.  

Not to mention the magazine space...a 5" shell would take at least twice the space of a 57, probably a LOT more than that, so your magazine capacity would be reduced to at best 50% of the current 57mm loadout.  You would not have enough on hand to do a significant amount of NGS, or anything else with a 5".

If there was a 5" system that was very low in recoil, and had no through-deck penetration (except for the hoists) then you might be in business, but as it is, I don't think it'd work on a Frigate.  
  
NavyShooter


----------



## x-grunt

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> Stepping up to the 5" for a new platform makes sense.



What ever happened to the 5" 54's on the 280's? They still around in mothballs somewhere (and why were they removed in the first place?)


----------



## hugh19

They are on the Japanese Kongou's as far as I am told.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

sledge said:
			
		

> They are on the Japanese Kongou's as far as I am told.



They went to the Dutch who have since removed them from service apparently.


----------



## NCRCrow

the dutch??


----------



## Mortar guy

There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.


MG


----------



## NCRCrow

WOW!


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.htm

Some interesting links to the DD(X) advanced gun system - a report on a recent test with a 63 NM range, description of the 155mm AGS and the 5" systems along with comments on the impact of extended range munitions on barrel life.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can you imagine a Canadian MoD making a speech like this about the value of AAD:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/HillSpeechtpl.cfm?CurrentId=4931
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
DEFENCE + INDUSTRY CONFERENCE
CANBERRA
TUESDAY, 21 JUNE 2005
Good morning and welcome to the 2005 Defence and Industry Conference. I am pleased to have been asked to address the conference for the fourth consecutive year.

 In this year's address I will update you on the progress of some of our reforms and provide you with detail on future plans. In the light of recent momentous decisions on naval capability, I will also focus on some facts, some myths and some observations in this key area of Defence.

DCP 2005-15

In keeping with the conference theme of "getting down to businessâ ?, I would like to provide you with some measures of how the Government's reform of Defence Procurement is beginning to realise the boost in productivity needed to deliver the capabilities in the DCP. Since February 2004 the Government has granted approvals to more than 40 projects, with a value of around $4.5 billion. Some of the bigger projects include:
"¢	The Air Warfare Destroyer Design Activity
"¢	12 Additional MRH-90 Trooplift Helicopters
"¢	Acquisition of ABRAMS Main Battle Tanks
"¢	SM1 Missile Replacement for FFG
"¢	Two Additional Wedgetail AEW&C Aircraft
"¢	Upgrades to F/A-18 Electronic Warfare Self Protection
"¢	Early Engine Replacement for our Chinook helicopters; and 
"¢	P3-C Electronic Warfare Self Protection

As time moves on, of course, we need to continually update and refine the DCP to ensure that it remains affordable, deliverable and relevant to our circumstances. 

Whilst I have previously said that I do not believe another Defence White Paper is required at this time, you may be aware that I have directed the Department to undertake a strategic update. In accordance with the Howard Government's basic tenet that capability decisions must flow from strategic guidance - rather than vice versa - I would anticipate that this strategic update will be followed shortly afterwards by the release of an updated Public DCP. This new document will take account of the projects and phases that have been approved within the last 18 months, and provide updated information on forthcoming projects.   We see this as part of our duty to provide Industry with visibility of the future. I hope to have both of these documents released before the end of this year.
Of course, whilst we plan and prepare for the future, we are also getting on with things in the present. Since I last addressed you, the new capability development and DMO executive teams, led by General Hurley and Dr Gumley respectively, have been implementing reforms, driving change and delivering efficiencies across the board.

The clearest evidence that concrete improvements are being made is to be found in the fact that this year's Budget returned $300 million in capital funding to the DCP from beyond the forward estimates. This was able to be done with confidence, given the fact that this year DMO will spend some $3.1 billion on capital acquisition - 100% of its target.

It is now a combined task for DMO and Industry to demonstrate to Government that these improvements will be sustained over the longer term.   This would then provide a background from which I can argue for the return of the balance of deferred expenditures and achieve an expenditure profile closer that originally anticipated.

Air Warfare Destroyers
We are pleased to have progressed the AWD project to the point where we have been able to name a preferred builder for the three new ships we intend to build in Australia.   *Yet some commentators still argue against the purchase of this capability.   They also tend to argue against the purchase of larger amphibious support ships.   I thought I should make some points on this important issue.

It is a primary responsibility of Government to ensure that the ADF maintains sufficient flexibility to provide military response options to a wide range of contingencies.*

To provide the Government with such options the ADF will need the ability to gain and use freedom of action in an area of the sea, and, if required, to deny the use of that area to an adversary. In today's environment, this requires the control of activities on the sea surface, in the water mass and on the sea bed, in the airspace above the sea, across the electromagnetic spectrum, and over and on nearby coastal land.   

We provide various capabilities to cover each of these elements, including submarines, warships, troops and fighter aircraft. For today's purposes I would like to focus upon control of the Air. This directly enables freedom of operation on the sea without being threatened or attacked by an opponent's air power. It is a prerequisite for successful military operations, both in attack and defence, in the presence of a hostile air threat.   

To exercise control of the air over the Maritime and Littoral environments the Government is investing in a system of complementary capabilities. These include the new Air Warfare Destroyer, the Joint Strike Fighter, new Air-to-Air Refuelling aircraft, Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, Over the Horizon Radar, and new generation Army Ground Based Air Defence systems. It is critical that these capabilities work as a system, as no single capability will see its potential maximised working alone.    

The concept of Network Centric Warfare provides connectivity between these assets to share tactical and targeting information and ensure that the synergies between these complementary technologies can be maximised. The Government is investing in future war fighting technologies such as the Cooperative Engagement Capability of the Aegis system which will allow other platforms, such Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft to provide targeting data to the Air Warfare Destroyer. This will allow weapons to be launched against targets that might ordinarily be outside the range of the surface ships sensors. 

The Air Warfare Destroyers themselves will deliver an Area Air Warfare capability that will be able to provide air defence for other ADF assets including forces ashore and friendly aircraft, and against hostile aircraft and missiles over large areas. Once deployed to an area of operations the Air Warfare Destroyers will be available at all times and in all weather. The Government has identified the Aegis system as a proven technology able to react quickly to detect, classify, target and destroy a hostile air threat within the short warning times inherent in the high technology missiles and aircraft now coming into our region.

As I alluded to before, the Joint Strike Fighter will play an important role in complementing the capabilities of the Air Warfare Destroyer, and when available will be called upon to provide an additional layer of air defence to our deployed forces at sea. Importantly through, each capability does not compete or substitute another, rather they are force multipliers. *To suppose one can supplant another, or that more aircraft are better than fewer destroyers is to fundamentally misunderstand the future nature of both air and sea power. Sea based assets have a smaller engagement envelope and a slower deployment, but a much longer range and hugely greater persistence*.

*Control of the sea will allow Aus*tralia, at its maximum, the ability to lift, to lodge, to sustain and to withdraw a combined arms battle group consisting of an embarked force of about 2000 personnel across two ships, and their vehicles and equipment, wherever and whenever the Government determines. The initial lodgement of this force requires a company-strength component to be lifted and landed simultaneously from helicopters, in addition to personnel, armour and equipment landed from amphibious watercraft.

These requirements demand what will be, in global terms, medium-sized but very sophisticated amphibious ships, and an ability independently to protect the substantial embarked force both in transit and in theatre. While it is disembarked, the RAN must also provide fire support, facilities and logistics support to reduce the size of the land force's footprint ashore. As an island nation, this capability will be critical for all ADF operations regardless of whether they are mounted offshore or on Australian territory.  

*The Australian Government has decided firmly in favour of these amphibious and combatant capabilities, which will allow the ADF to use the sea as the highway that it properly is, rather than the moat that some would perhaps prefer.* In countless other scenarios, whether it be the evacuation of Australian nationals overseas, humanitarian assistance missions or the protection of our vital maritime trading routes, the Government needs to preserve the ability to use the sea to advance an national interest.   
   
AWD Project History
So having outlined the case why these maritime capabilities are strategically important, I would like to make a few comments on the project to date.

The project has been carefully designed to take advantage of lessons learnt from previous experiences.

We filled the program manager position within the DMO on merit, and in this instance the position went to an outside industry specialist.   We decided that until second pass approval, the project manager must report jointly to General Hurley and Dr Gumley - drawing together the capability development and acquisition process for as long as possible.   In fact the Defence Capability Group and the DMO will work together to achieve the capability specification during phase 2.   We believe this will guard against so called "scope-creepâ ? in the acquisition phase of the project.

Before first pass approval of the project was considered, $43 million was appropriated to phase one risk reduction strategies and independent commercial advice was sought on many issues.   We engaged Australian industry early and we undertook international benchmarking of similar projects to better understand risks and opportunities.

Selecting the proven technology of the Aegis Combat system as the core of Air Warfare Destroyer Combat system early in the project was a strategic choice by Government.   Again early on we selected Raytheon Australia as the Combat System Systems Engineer to integrate the non-Aegis components of the Combat System.   Now we have selected ASC Shipbuilder as the AWD shipbuilder before selection of design in order to consider input from the ship builder.

The Government will shortly consider which company will join the second phase of the project to develop what is referred to as the "evolvedâ ? design.   I anticipate Government announcing the selection of the successful Platform System Designer within the next few months. The selected Platform System Designer will work with the rest of the AWD design team to develop the evolved design.   
For the Air Warfare Destroyer project an Alliance Based Target Incentive Agreement has been developed in conjunction with commercial advice from Carnegie Wylie and Co. Over the next two years, as risks are further reduced in the Phase two activities, the Ship builder, the CSSE, the Ship designer and the Commonwealth will enter into the contract.

The target incentive agreement will not be a so called soft alliance. To the contrary there will be real rewards for good performance and real penalties for underperformance of any contractor, including potential financial losses. IP ownership rights will be clear to respective parties, and the contract avoids incentives towards variations and delays and provides transparency to the Commonwealth of contractor performance.   

Most importantly, and in line with the principle of   allocating risks to where they can best be managed, industry will be accepting risks without the ability to transfer them back to the Commonwealth.      

On the issue of contracting, the Government has been at pains to procure the very best advice. We have taken the view that the experts on these matters are merchant bankers, infrastructure developers, financiers and project managers.
I'm pleased that after all of these activities, the programme remains exactly on time as we move towards the critical design and build phases.
              
Industry Involvement
Australian defence industry has a major opportunity here to showcase their skills and ability on the world stage. The AWD will be the most prominent destroyer program being undertaken in the world for the next 5-10 years. And when combined with the Amphibious Ship Project - how Australian defence industry manages these two large and important projects will be the focus of attention of a number of interested countries.   

Whilst the AWD's will be assembled at Osborne in South Australia, it is anticipated that around 1000 of the 2000 jobs created will be in other States where some 70 percent of the module construction is expected to be outsourced.   Thus there is potential for considerable work for other shipyards and manufacturers in Australia. 

I am sure that many SMEs will be seeking more detail on these exciting new developments and the opportunities available to them.   To facilitate this, the AWD team will be undertaking a national road-show later this year, with the purpose of explaining the way ahead, the opportunities presented and how SME's can get involved.   

I know that we are making a big ask of industry, but I am confident that with the support that will be provided through the Government's Skilling Australian Defence Industry initiative that together we can achieve an excellent outcome for the Navy and the nation.

Australian Defence Industry Intiative
With this in mind, it gives me considerable pleasure to announce today that the first two companies to receive funding under the Skilling Australia's Defence Industry program will be Australian Defence Industries and Austal Ships of Australia. 

The initial agreements between these companies will be for three years with the level of investment from the SADI program in the first year being more than $1.3 million Dollars. 

The level of Government investment through the SADI program is being matched by both companies and will provide skills in a number of areas including integrated logistics support, fabrication, welding, hydraulics and pneumatics and project management.   
Proposals from other companies covering this and other sectors where there are critical shortages have also been sought and are under current consideration.

The AWD and similar projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter offer Australian industry the chance to showcase itself. However, having the skills is only one component - effective marketing is another.

Defence Materiel Advocate 
In June 2004, Government announced a new defence export initiative to help facilitate access by Australian defence exporters to foreign buyers.   This initiative had two key elements.   Firstly, it sought the establishment of a new "Team Australiaâ ? international marketing tool that would showcase innovative Australian Defence technology.   The new marketing tool was launched at Avalon in March this year 

Secondly, recognising that in some markets, military uniforms and braid can open doors that would otherwise be closed, the Defence export initiative sought the establishment of a dedicated military officer of star-rank to help promote Australian defence industry exports and provide the linkage to operational experience. This initiative recognised the need to provide more continuity in "Service orientedâ ?, military user support to Australian defence industry export efforts.

I am pleased to announce that I have approved the appointment of Major General Jim Molan to this position.   This position will provide assistance to Australian defence industry by having a dedicated military leader to help present and promote their capabilities.   General Molan has recently returned from active service in Iraq, where he held the highest level command position within the multi national force available to an Australian.   He will be ideally placed to assist Australian companies in understanding the needs of overseas militaries.
He will be tasked with escorting, or engaging other military officers to escort, Australian companies and potential export customers, both in country and overseas, to provide the operator's perspective of the defence technology to support export opportunities.   I welcome him aboard.

He will work hand in glove with the civilian leadership of our DMO Industry Division.   Together they should significantly enhance our support to Australian industry in the challenging global market

Conclusion
In conclusion the last year has been very busy both operationally and from an industry perspective.

The next twelve months looks like being even busier with the decision on design of the Air Warfare Destroyer, 1st pass for the Amphibious Ships, delivery of various Defence assets including Armed Reconnaissance helicopters 4 and 5 next month, Armidale class patrol Boats two and three and the continuing delivery of the Bushmaster Infantry Mobility vehicles.

The next twelve months will also see the continuing professionalisation of the DMO workforce and the upskilling of the Defence and industry workforces.

DMO will open for business as a Prescribed Agency in 10 days time.   I encourage industry to work with us to build on our successes and help to assure your own.

I have pleasure in officially opening the Defence + Industry conference for 2005.

End.

IMO, The Aussies will eventually reacquire CVL, along with their LPD's and AAD. 




Would one of our MoD's show their face at a conference like this and have the balls to speak such words?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

On that note (apparently cut & pasted from the Kangaroo Financial Review)....


Matthew.   



> A cut down version of the American Arleigh Burke class destroyer has firmed as the preferred design for three air warfare destroyers (AWDs) to be built in Australia at a cost of more than $6 Billion.
> Federal cabinet is expected to announce the design next week , two months after it
> awarded the contract to build the destroyers to Adelaide ASC Pty Ltd.
> The so-called Baby Burke, still only a paper ship, is now regarded as the favourite to be chosen ahead of the Spanish F-100 and German F-124 AWD designs both of which are built and operating.
> Senior Naval Officers favour the Baby Burke design, offered by US Designers Gibbs and Cox, because of its extra space for equipment and for accomodating and training crews.
> Cabinet's National Security Committee is likely to be attracted to the US purchase for reasons of easy inter-operability, alliance solidarity, and for security of access to US technology during construction of what will be Australia's most complex, costly and risky warship.
> Cabinet will be influenced by it's ambition to co-operate with the US in the development of ABM systems through the use of the US Aegis combat systems to be fitted to the AWDs.
> Moreover, having decided to acquire amphibious ships, air refueling aircraft and new helicopters from European sources, cabinet might judge it prudent to source its front line fighting ships from the US.
> Significantly, the ASC has a close association with the US ship builder Bath Ironworks, which has built 30 Arleigh Burke destroyers. This too strengthens the case for the Baby Burke design.....
> Details of the baby Burke design are still unclear, but Australia has said the full-sized Arleigh Burke destroyers are beyond Australia's budget and it's required capability. Their 323 crew requirement is also way beyond the 180-odd crew that Australia judges it can deploy on each of its AWDs.....
> Australia's first air warfare destroyer is due in the water in 2013..."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

In case anyone is looking for an interesting design, they should check out the new Korean KDX-3.

It's their next-generation AEGIS guided missile destroyer.  Just slightly bigger than the Arleigh Burke, it carries the missile load of the Ticonderoga.

Very impressive ship....due to launch in 2012.



Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

You're are truly an 'orrible tease Blackshirt. 

Nice kit though.  Any idea what the price is?


----------



## Cloud Cover

$52 from Tamiya, 1/600 scale.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quick. Buy a dozen.  We can sell them back to PWGSC.  At least as useful as some of the kit acquired I'm sure.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I'm sure a certain shipyard on the St. Lawrence would still be awarded a 3 billion contract to Canadianize them, and the public would be "none the wiser." Whats more, some people would still try and claim sea pay.


----------



## Kirkhill

Gawd what a bunch of cynics we've become ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

And on the subject of continuing to rub salt in wounds:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

The Australians are at it again.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is that Korean ship a Gibbs and Cox design?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.gibbscox.com/index.htm

Couldn't find reference to Korean vessel on G&C site.   Just their involvement in the Arleigh Burke's.

And Gibbs & Cox and Korea comes up empty on the web.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And on the subject of continuing to rub salt in wounds:
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
> 
> The Australians are at it again.



Since the link just goes to the main page and the link will eventually disappear, here is the content of the release:



> Gibbs & Cox, Inc. Selected as Preferred Designer for Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Contract
> 
> 
> (Source: Gibbs & Cox, Inc.; issued Aug. 16, 2005)
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON --- Gibbs & Cox, Inc. announced today that they have been chosen by the Commonwealth of Australia to be the preferred designer for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Program. The firm was selected through a competitive tender evaluation process that included two other international competitors.
> 
> Gibbs & Cox, Inc. will join a team made up of ASC Shipbuilder Pty. Ltd, who has been selected to build the AWDs, and Raytheon Australia, who has been selected as the Combat System System Engineer. In making his announcement, Senator Hill, Australian Minister for Defence, stated that, "The selection of Gibbs & Cox, Inc. as platform designer now completes the team whose responsibility it is to deliver the project."
> 
> The AWD Project will provide the Australian Defence Force with an affordable maritime air warfare capability as part of their comprehensive layered air defense. The AWD will be a multi-mission combatant capable of simultaneous operations in all warfare areas, including Anti-Air, Anti- Submarine, Anti-Surface and Electronic Warfare. It will be equipped with the AEGIS Combat System. The Project will be one of the most significant shipbuilding projects undertaken in Australia, and will provide significant opportunities for Australian industry.
> 
> "We are very proud to be selected as the preferred designer for the Air Warfare Destroyer Program, and look forward to working with the AWD team to deliver this important capability to the Commonwealth," said Kevin Moak, Chairman of Gibbs & Cox, Inc.
> 
> Gibbs & Cox, Inc. is an independent engineering and design firm specializing in naval architecture, marine engineering, design, management support, and consulting engineering. Since 1929, the firm has been continuously providing services to the U.S. and international Navies, other government agencies, shipyards, and commercial clients. Gibbs & Cox, Inc. has supported the Commonwealth for over 30 years on most of its major surface combatant projects. Nearly 200 naval vessels now in service or under contract worldwide, including over 60% of the U.S. Navy's current surface combatant fleet, are built to Gibbs & Cox designs. Included in these are the designs of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), DDG 51 Class AEGIS Guided Missile Destroyers and the FFG 7 Class Guided Missile Frigates.
> 
> 
> The firm is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia with offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Hampton, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Together, these offices offer full service support to domestic and international government and commercial clients. Gibbs & Cox, Inc. is certified as ISO compliant under ISO 9001:2000 for design, engineering and administrative services. (ends)
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin Welcomes Gibbs & Cox to the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Program
> 
> 
> (Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Aug. 16, 2005)
> 
> 
> SYDNEY, Australia --- Defence Minister Robert Hill today announced that Gibbs & Cox will join Lockheed Martin on the Royal Australian Navy's Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program as the ship designer. Lockheed Martin was selected to provide the Aegis Weapon System in August 2004, and is the U.S. Navy's Aegis Combat System Engineering Agent.
> 
> "Through the Aegis Weapon System, Lockheed Martin has successfully supported delivery of six new classes of multi-mission, Aegis-equipped combat ships in four allied nations, each with unique requirements and designs. As the seventh new class of multi-mission, Aegis-equipped ship progresses, we welcome and look forward to working with Gibbs & Cox on this program of critical importance to Australia," said Orlando Carvalho, vice president of Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors' Surface Systems line of business. "Lockheed Martin has an excellent and long-standing relationship with Gibbs & Cox, including work on the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class of Aegis-equipped ships, and the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship - a relationship with a history of delivering capability on time and on budget."
> 
> Mick Aylward, AWD program manager at Lockheed Martin Australia, added that Gibbs & Cox is a welcome addition to the AWD team.
> 
> "We look forward to working with the team and setting our sights on delivering the AWD on schedule and on budget. Gibbs & Cox will provide additional expertise to an existing strong industrial team, assuring Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation that Aegis ship design practices are fully leveraged," said Aylward .
> 
> The Aegis Weapon System includes the SPY-1D(V) radar, the world's most advanced computer-controlled radar system. When paired with the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare. The Aegis Weapon System has been deployed on more than 75 ships around the world, with 30 more ships planned. In addition to the U.S. and Australia, Aegis is the weapon system of choice for Japan, Korea, Norway and Spain.
> 
> 
> Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Lockheed Martin employs about 130,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services.
> 
> -ends-


----------



## Cloud Cover

Rather than start a new thread, I thought i would drag up this one. Anyway, I found this little paragraph very interesting about the Type 45 Daring Destroyer currently being built by the UK:

"The initial design of the Type 45 is clearly optimised for air warfare and there is deliberately considerable potential and opportunity to add other capabilities and fit a wider range of missile types. * Due largely to financial constraints it's likely that the early ships will be completed without Harpoon SSM's, Stingray torpedoes, ILMS, or a capability to operate the Merlin helicopter*.   However the potential to fit them if needed will be there, and their absence reflects a realistic prioritisation of the available funding."

The above is from the navy-matters web site. No link provided to the exact page as the site owner does not like deep linking, but here is the main page: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/.


I guess we aren't the only ones with funding problems, but given the tiny size of our Navy I don't think it would be wise for Canada to ever consider building a new ship without all of those capabilities. Now I know our current AAD does not carry SSM, but I would think any future Canadian build would use the MK 41 VLS, which means the Tomahawk could be loaded- as long as the appropriate targetting equipment is installed.      And the Harpoon should be ubiquitous in the Canadian Navy- not just a 330 phenomenon. 

Building a 700 million dollar destroyer for the RN that cannot operate the Merlin makes me think that it will likely carry the Lynx.


----------



## Kirkhill

W601

IIRC the RN is in the process of reworking their Lynx fleet to continue to perform the ASW/ASuW roles that they have always done while working off of their older destroyers and frigates.  Mediums on vessels of that size being something of a Canadian specialty. 

I recall seeing on beedall's site something about the Type 45  being fitted with an outsize (by RN standards) flight deck to accomodate Merlins and possibly even Chinooks so that a platoon/troop of Royal Marines could be deployed.  Carrying a full troop on such a vessel was supposed to be something of a back to the future type of innovation.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The regular version of the daring has 45 extra berths and can flex up to 60 in "austere" conditions. Interestingly, the berths were calssed as 30 RM and 15 "specialists" whatever that means. [ Well, I think weknow what that means]

The Global Cruiser, which nearly doubled the size of the vessel, was shown with a Chinook on the deck, along with UAV's, and a Merlin in the air. IIRC the design was for an understrength company and to put them ashore by air and/or large RIB. I belive the MK 41  and a prototype 155 were shown as fitted. Quite the ship.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The Global Cruiser is an interesting project one I wish we would adopt but alas...... The new Single class surface combatant is supposedly as capapble, too bad I will be long out before I get to sail on one.


----------



## Mortar guy

I have to jump in here even though I only have the most basic of knowledge of things naval. IMHO the SSC should have the following capabilities:

32 and preferably 64 Mk41 VLS cells for ESSM, SM-2/SM-6 and TacTom. In a perfect world it could also carry the NTACMS (although now defunct) or a navalized version of the GMLRS for naval fire support.

155mm gun firing precision rounds for NFS

8 Harpoon Block II (or follow-on) for ASuW with a decent littoral capability

Phalanx Block 1B x 2 

20-30mm stabilized single mounts x 2-4 (in place of .50s on CPFs and Tribals)

Flight deck and hangar for 2 Cyclone sized helicopers as well as a UAV system. One or both of these helos would be configured for troop lift depending on the mission.

A reconfigurable space that can accomodate the following (perhaps containerized like the Stanflex ships?):

- Berths for about 20 along with Ops/Office space for a Task Group commander and his staff
- Berths and storage space for 50-60 troops
- Short term berths (ie really cramped quarters) for up to 100 troops

The ability to quickly launch and recover RHIBs from a stern ramp or well

Active Phased Array Radar and 3D search radar.  VDS and bow sonar with mine avoidance capability.

Blah blah blah. You get the point. If this has already been incorporated into the plan for the SSC then I apologize. Good thing I like the sound of my own typing...

Alex


----------



## Infanteer

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Flight deck and hangar for 2 Cyclone sized helicopers as well as a UAV system. One or both of these helos would be configured for troop lift depending on the mission.
> 
> A reconfigurable space that can accomodate the following (perhaps containerized like the Stanflex ships?):
> 
> - Berths for about 20 along with Ops/Office space for a Task Group commander and his staff
> - Berths and storage space for 50-60 troops
> - Short term berths (ie really cramped quarters) for up to 100 troops
> 
> The ability to quickly launch and recover RHIBs from a stern ramp or well



That is certainly in the line of thinking of USMC "Distributed Operations".  Give it the modern stealth treatment, and you could have a few of these prowling off the shore, inserting small combined-arms teams into the littoral and over the shore to accomplish missions.  The ship "base" would act as a support platform for these small units with those fancy weapons systems you listed off....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> I have to jump in here even though I only have the most basic of knowledge of things naval. IMHO the SSC should have the following capabilities:
> 
> 32 and preferably 64 Mk41 VLS cells for ESSM, SM-2/SM-6 and TacTom. In a perfect world it could also carry the NTACMS (although now defunct) or a navalized version of the GMLRS for naval fire support.
> 
> 155mm gun firing precision rounds for NFS
> 
> 8 Harpoon Block II (or follow-on) for ASuW with a decent littoral capability
> 
> Phalanx Block 1B x 2
> 
> 20-30mm stabilized single mounts x 2-4 (in place of .50s on CPFs and Tribals)
> 
> Flight deck and hangar for 2 Cyclone sized helicopers as well as a UAV system. One or both of these helos would be configured for troop lift depending on the mission.
> 
> A reconfigurable space that can accomodate the following (perhaps containerized like the Stanflex ships?):
> 
> - Berths for about 20 along with Ops/Office space for a Task Group commander and his staff
> - Berths and storage space for 50-60 troops
> - Short term berths (ie really cramped quarters) for up to 100 troops
> 
> The ability to quickly launch and recover RHIBs from a stern ramp or well
> 
> Active Phased Array Radar and 3D search radar.   VDS and bow sonar with mine avoidance capability.
> 
> Blah blah blah. You get the point. If this has already been incorporated into the plan for the SSC then I apologize. Good thing I like the sound of my own typing...
> 
> Alex



I think we could do without the 155mm and bring it back to 5 inch that way we could increase the Mk41 cannister loadout to an additional 12-24 cells. That way we can increase our AAD capability and TacTom loadout. With the adoption of 5 inch vice the 155 you could still embark your ERGM shells onboard at much less expense and still have 3 weapon systems dedicated to NGS.

We seem to be going away from VDS with our adoption of towed array.


----------



## Mortar guy

Ex-Dragoon - noted. I didn't know the 155 took up that much more space than the 5".

Infanteer - What I was thinking for the 50-60 troops on this ship would be very limited DA (raids, demonstrations,NEO (maybe), etc.), boarding parties and targeting/strategic reconnaissance. In the latter case, they could provide the int and TA needed for the NFS. Anyway, not the greatest plan but it may be useful.

Alex


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting that Mortar Guy and Ex-Dragoon included Tac-Tom in their loadouts.   This weapon of the arch-imperialists has been adopted by the freedom loving and peaceful people of the Netherlands.   Can we be far behind?

The VLS system is opening up all sorts of possibilities - in addition to the array of Naval missiles (SAM, SSM and SSuM) the US Navy also looking at incorporating missiles like GMRLS, ATACMS and (my perennial favourite - Netfires).





> Dutch Parliament Supports Purchase of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
> 
> 
> (Source: Radio Netherlands; issued Nov. 17, 2005)
> 
> 
> Defence Minister Henk Kamp is expected to receive parliamentary support for his plan to purchase 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
> 
> The Christian Democrats, who until now said the money was needed to replace Chinook helicopters which crashed in Afghanistan, have changed their minds now that Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm says he will advance the money for the Chinooks.
> 
> The left-wing opposition is shocked by the sudden majority in favour of buying cruise missiles and accuses the government coalition of horse-trading.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16791263.1132760349.Q4SNHcOa9dUAABh6U1k&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting - the discussion of Canada's new "capital warship" has moved towards brown-water littoral operations with a ship-to-shore ground capability.  If we are to achieve the CDS's transformation goals of providing "focused and integrated effects" on "the bubble", perhaps we are indeed on the right track with this.

Obviously, Naval Surface Fire Support is important if we are to undertake "sea-based operations ashore".  Precision, as Kirkhill mentioned above, is one important factor.  Precision is a useful tool and can be a force multiplier in complex warfighting.  However, precision isn't a panacea - as argued in this thread, there are many cases where a well placed munition won't matter, for there are many ways to protect oneself from both the accuracy and the power of precision weapons (this comes out of Biddle's paradigm of _Modern System of Force Employment_).  The other half of the equation is physical mass - physical mass backed by volume.  Should a platform like the one being discussed above be able of providing both precision and mass?  In the June 05 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, which focuses on Fire Support, Dr William Stearman writes an interesting article for bringing the _Iowa_ class BB's out of mothball.  He cites the fact that the Commandant of the USMC has stated that the 5-inch naval gun is insufficient for providing fire support to ground forces and quoting Paul Wolfowitz in saying that a 5-inch shell that flies for 100 miles is still a 5-inch shell.

Anyways, this is not an argument for Canadian Battleships.  It is a suggestion that, if we are to pursue CDS transformation initiatives, that both types of naval gunfire may become more important to our capabilities in the future and that we should consider it when thinking about the ship to replace our destroyers.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Cloud Cover

The rate of fire for a naval gun is significantly higher than that of a land based artillery piece. For example, the Brits use a 4.5" gun for NGS that fires ~ 27 rounds per minute. Now, that is not "barrage mass", but it is a lot of HE if necessary. A typical Naval munitions locker would hold in excess of 500 rounds per gun. The Brit Type 45 Daring holds about 800 rds. 

Even our old 3" 70 cal twin mount could pump out over 60 rounds per minute [if the parts didn't fly off the thing and there was an ample supply of spare light bulbs aboardship.] A night shoot, while very rare, was a sight both awesome and terrifying.


----------



## NavyShooter

One thing that was discussed yesterday at a meeting we had in the cave with COMFLTLANT was efficiency vs effectiveness.   The budget restraints of the 90s forced us to be very efficient, but that reduced our effectiveness considerably in a lot of cases.   

That said, the efficiency is unlikely to change quickly (particularly when it comes to getting new surface units)   and despite the need to pretty much fast-track the AOR replacement, do you think it's likely that they'll release funds more easily/quickly with less oversight (as is needed to fast-track things) when we're about to see the release of the Gomery report which will probably suggest doing exactly the opposite?   

So, that said, new units are likely to take a LONG time to acquire.   Meaning that we have to find ways to make our current platforms more effective in meeting the demands placed on them by the new plans the CDS has for us.

The plans seem to include both a littoral and a ground troop support capability that the CPF's were not originally designed for.   These ships were designed mainly as an ASW platform for blue-water operations.   The fact that they were changed to a "Multi-role" frigate notwithstanding, they were designed in the 80's and built in the 90's when the ASW game was what the Canadian Navy did BEST.

Now we're doing a whole lot more with them, and finding that they're able to do things they weren't designed to do.   What's the problem with adding one more thing to that, and adding the hardware to make them a somewhat capable NGS platform??

The shipboard 57mm Bofors is capable of a high rate of fire, but it's still only just over a 2" shell, with very little HE Capacity.

I think I dumped it into this thread a while back, but taking one of the torpedo magazines, removing the torpedoes, and putting in a 120mm turretted auto-mortar (just shy of 5") with a max effective range of around 12 KM would be a very capable system, without losing much in the way of capability for the CPF.   

The mortar would have much less recoil than a regular gun, meaning that it would require less strengthening of the ship to fit it in.   the Torpedo mag would provide an excellent location for installing the system, and reducing loadout of torpedos by 50%   would not really affect us that much.   Keeping the tubes but removing the racks for them to allow 120mm palleted storage would allow a huge volume of ammo to be carried too!

This would be a way to add NGS to our fleet *NOW* (in the short term, with our current platform) allowing us to increase our effectiveness without having to wait a decade for a new class of ship that hasn't even seen a plate laid for the keel yet!

NavyShooter


----------



## Cloud Cover

Actually, this thread needs a thorough re-read from the beginning. There is much good and useful information contained in it.


----------



## STONEY

Actually most of the the idea's contained in this thread are more based on fantasy than reality and show no knowledge of Naval construction.  Canada along with Germany & the Netherlands developed the APAR radar that is used in the German & Dutch air defence frigates but this radar cannot be fitted to our CPF'S because they have already reached there top load limit. If we were to load up our ships with all the toys sugested here they would simply roll over . In order to put the MK41 on the Tribals they had to remove their 5" Gun(which were refurbished by otto melara and are now fitted onboard the before mentioned Dutch AAW ships)  + the seasparrow missle launchers and magazine.  To build a new ship that carried all the systems suggested here  would require a ship 2-3 times the size and double the crew of our present ships not to mention a price tag a bit outta our reach. But i guess its OK to dream in technicolour.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Actually most of the the idea's contained in this thread are more based on fantasy than reality and show no knowledge of Naval construction



Then offer some of your knowledge and guidance and maybe it would not be fanatsy as you point out? Time to put your money where your mouth is Stoney...


----------



## Navy_Blue




----------



## Armymatters

Issues that I see:
1. The British Type 45 destroyer has a completely different weapon, sensor and engineering set from what Canada is already used to. Namely, the SAMPSON multi-function radar that tracks airborne targets, the Aster air defense missiles, 4.5 inch Mk 8 Mod. 1 gun, the twin 30mm guns, MFS 7000 sonar, the 48-cell SYLVER vertical missile launcher, and the Rolls-Royce/Northrop Grumman WR-21 turbine engine. Sure, we can probally substitute the SAMPSON radar with the AN/SPY-1 series radar (adding AEGIS capability), the guns can be substituted for the 5 inch gun and a pair of M242 25mm chain guns, and the SYLVER VLS system can be substituted for the American Mk 41 system, but what are the costs involved? What about the engines? Are we going to be operating a small number of unique engines in the fleet or are we going to substituting them for the more common GE LM2500 engines that are already found in the fleet? By then, it is not the same ship as it was before, all you are basically using is the bare hull, excluding the superstructure.

2. The issue with the Arleigh Burke class destroyers is their large crew sizes, up to 380 officers and men, compared to the current vessels in the fleet, for example the Halifax class frigates have a crew of 234 officer and men, or the Iroquois class destroyers with a crew of 285. With the current staffing shortages of the Navy, crew sizes have to be around the same size as the Halifax class frigates. The only way you can get a large ship crew size down is through automation. A more appropriate size vessel that can be supported by the Navy is a vessel with around 240 crew members and officers. The Korean KDX-III destroyer has a massive crew size, about the same of the Burke class destroyers. A ship more similar to the German Sachsen class frigates is more appropriate; their size, 5600 tons, covers up that they have excellent weapons systems, which include a vertical launch system with 32 cells for 32 ESSM (4 per cell) and 24 SM-2 IIA surface-to-air missiles, 2 RAM launchers with 21 surface-to-air/CIWS-missiles each, 2 quadruple Harpoon missile launcher, 1 OTO-Melara 76mm dual-purpose gun, and a large hangar, capable of holding either 2 Sea Lynx  helos or 2 NH90 helicopters. Crew size is around the same as the Halifax class frigates; 230. However, the ships are expensive; 1.5 billion Euros for 3 ships.

3. Current CADRE design specifications I have seen demand Command and Control capabilities, air defense, land attack, theater ballistic missile defence, intelligence gathering, and surveillance. A pretty long list of demands. To fit all these into a single hull design requires that the ship design be very large. Logically, the only class of ship that can acutally fit all that in with space for upgrades is a cruiser, or a very big destroyer. However, we don't exactly have the budget for buying large destroyers, or cruisers. The most obvious way to get around this issue is to split the specifications into smaller chunks. However, the trade off is that we have to buy more hulls.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CADRE is dead, they plan on a single class(to replace both the CPF and 280s) with the first 4 ships optimized for AAD and command and control. I would like to see a modifed/extended Type 124 fulfill this role, we would end up with more bang for our buck.


----------



## Armymatters

I would pretty much say that the Sachsen class (F124) frigates are good enough as it is. They need a bit of Canadianization, mostly regarding to helo operations, torpedo tubes, the sonar, the secondary guns, but otherwise, the basic design is good enough for Canada. It has excellent area AAW capability, with both ESSM and the Standard II missiles, and the CIWS, the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), is already being considered by the DND to eventually replace Phalanx. The large flightdeck and hangar means that fitting the Cyclone shouldn't be a problem. Its a good design in its own right, purchasing 4 or 5 of them will add valuable air defense capabilites to the fleet.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We might be even better off buying the class as is....look how long it will be before we get a Victoria class operational because of Canadianization. :/


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> We might be even better off buying the class as is....look how long it will be before we get a Victoria class operational because of Canadianization. :/



You forgot demothballing (we are the first guys ever to ever demothball a submarine, as usually if a submarine is being mothballed, it is usually heading to the scrapyard very soon), the dents in the pressure hull that the Royal Navy can't explain, and the fact that they are a unique class (which leads to spare parts shortages as the suppliers stopped manufacturing parts for the subs, which caused trouble for Chicoutimi, as we robbed parts from her to install on the other ships). Building our own subs was pointless; the Australians tried this, and they had endless snags with their Collins class submarines. We should have bought German Type 212A class submarines instead, as the Germans and the Italians are fielding it, and they already have AIP propulsion.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

LOL I am way ahead of you:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28345.0.html


----------



## Armymatters

Techincally, I would want the American Virginia class attack subs, but there are a few hurdles to overcome:
1. They are nuclear powered. Not exactly a problem as we have plenty of nuclear fuel in Canada.
2. Costs. These subs are expensive (but capable). $1.65 billion US each.
3. Large crew size. One Virginia requires 3 times the crew size as the Victoria's.
4. The Americans don't want to share their naval nuclear propulsion technology with us. We sell them uranium for their nuclear reactors. Go figure.  :

Since we can't have American nuclear subs, and the fact that we are cheap, we are stuck with convential subs.


----------



## STONEY

I agree that the F-124 platform is an excellent design. Its designers could easily modify the design to meet Canadian requirements and we could build it here so it wouldn't require Canadianization.  The problem with the Victoria's was that we had to tear out British equipment and replace it with American equipment that we had, and then integrate it & do it on the cheap as the money and man hours set aside for this was used to keep the rest of the fleet going. The whole process could have been completed a lot faster had  the necessary money and yard manpower been made available.  I also note that the F-124 design was in the running for the Aussie AAW destroyer but lost out to a new modified Burke class design as the Aussies wanted the Aegis Weapon system.  
         The reason the Aussies built their own design subs was because no one else was building one that met their requirements so they had to build their own.  They required a long range large patrol sub and while subs like German 212 are excellent boats they are smaller shorter range boats, which is one of the reasons why Canada bought the Victoria's as they were the only open ocean type available short of building a new design like the Aussies or buying from Japan who is the only country beside Russia building large conventional boats.


----------



## Armymatters

STONEY said:
			
		

> I agree that the F-124 platform is an excellent design. Its designers could easily modify the design to meet Canadian requirements and we could build it here so it wouldn't require Canadianization.  The problem with the Victoria's was that we had to tear out British equipment and replace it with American equipment that we had, and then integrate it & do it on the cheap as the money and man hours set aside for this was used to keep the rest of the fleet going. The whole process could have been completed a lot faster had  the necessary money and yard manpower been made available.  I also note that the F-124 design was in the running for the Aussie AAW destroyer but lost out to a new modified Burke class design as the Aussies wanted the Aegis Weapon system.
> The reason the Aussies built their own design subs was because no one else was building one that met their requirements so they had to build their own.  They required a long range large patrol sub and while subs like German 212 are excellent boats they are smaller shorter range boats, which is one of the reasons why Canada bought the Victoria's as they were the only open ocean type available short of building a new design like the Aussies or buying from Japan who is the only country beside Russia building large conventional boats.



I don't know about the Victoria's being the only ocean type conventional subs available, according to Naval Technology, the French AGOSTA 90Bclass and Scorpène class submarines have better endurance and range (and the French classified these types in their most capable class as an océanique, meaning "ocean-going."), and the Type 212/214 has a longer endurance than the Victoria's and are just as big. 

Other AAW ships that I see as a potential off-the-shelf ship besides the German F-124, is the Spanish Alvaro de Bazán class (F-100) frigates, which are AEGIS ships, and Dutch De Zeven Provincien class frigates. All of the designs are suitable to replace the Tribals we got, and offer a major step upwards in terms of capabilites.


----------



## STONEY

Yah well if i was going to drive from Halifax to B.C. i'd rather go in a BMW 5 series rather than a Cavalier even though the Cavalier is more than capable of making it.  Cold figures alone don't tell the whole story about a submarine . Iveco believes that the LSVW is an excellent truck but not many agree.


----------



## Armymatters

STONEY said:
			
		

> Yah well if i was going to drive from Halifax to B.C. i'd rather go in a BMW 5 series rather than a Cavalier even though the Cavalier is more than capable of making it.  Cold figures alone don't tell the whole story about a submarine . Iveco believes that the LSVW is an excellent truck but not many agree.



Well, the Pakistanis seem to like the AGOSTA subs they just got from France, and the Germans and the Italians appear to be delighted with the Type 212. The South Koreans also seem to like the design, as they have purchased a few as well.


----------



## Mortar guy

> They required a long range large patrol sub and while subs like German 212 are excellent boats they are smaller shorter range boats, which is one of the reasons why Canada bought the Victoria's as they were the only open ocean type available short of building a new design like the Aussies or buying from Japan who is the only country beside Russia building large conventional boats.





> Yah well if i was going to drive from Halifax to B.C. i'd rather go in a BMW 5 series rather than a Cavalier even though the Cavalier is more than capable of making it.  Cold figures alone don't tell the whole story about a submarine . Iveco believes that the LSVW is an excellent truck but not many agree.



Wow, what an incredibly strange thing to say. On the one hand you say we should go for good quality ocean-going subs and then, when someone points out that there are lots of classes available that fit the bill, you come up with this weak "A Cavalier is more likely to survive a drive across Canada" argument!? So by your logic, we could have had better, more capable, less expensive submarines (Cavaliers), but you prefer a name brand that looks nice but is less capabe (BMW 5 series)? Not only are there better subs out there than the Victorias, but many now come with AIP which would make them well suited for under-ice ops. Maybe (just maybe) we didn't buy the Vics because they were the best but rather because they were cheap, available and the US and UK wanted us to buy them.

Oh, and by the way, trucks made by IVECO are fairly decent. Trucks made by Western Star based on dumbed-down IVECO designs are crap; so your argument doesn't hold water there either.

MG


----------



## Armymatters

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Wow, what an incredibly strange thing to say. On the one hand you say we should go for good quality ocean-going subs and then, when someone points out that there are lots of classes available that fit the bill, you come up with this weak "A Cavalier is more likely to survive a drive across Canada" argument!? So by your logic, we could have had better, more capable, less expensive submarines (Cavaliers), but you prefer a name brand that looks nice but is less capabe (BMW 5 series)? Not only are there better subs out there than the Victorias, but many now come with AIP which would make them well suited for under-ice ops. Maybe (just maybe) we didn't buy the Vics because they were the best but rather because they were cheap, available and the US and UK wanted us to buy them.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, trucks made by IVECO are fairly decent. Trucks made by Western Star based on dumbed-down IVECO designs are crap; so your argument doesn't hold water there either.
> 
> MG



I have to agree with the point that the Vic's were bought because they were cheap. we spent £244 million (roughly 500 million Canadian) on those subs, while the Type 214 costs about $1.3 billion dollars Canadian (from a South Korean order of 3 of the type) for 3 ships (or roughly $400 million each boat), but the South Koreans also wanted technology transfer, and wanted to build the subs in their own shipyards instead. Clearly, with the issues the Victoria's are having, the purchase price of 500 million dollars Canadian will have to be spent to put things right.


----------



## STONEY

I think that your missing the point i was trying to make. Despite data in websites like Naval Technology the Agosta, Scorpene and Type 212 were not designed, nor normally operated as long range patrol subs like the Victoria's or Collins"s. They operate in Balitc, Med or coastal areas usually. I never said there was anything wrong with these boats thay are excellent but when they travel any great distance from home they usually have a surface vessel as escort until they reach their operating area. The Victoria's & Collins"s were designed from the start to operate  over vast ocean areas by themselves. If you were to see all these boats parked alongside each other it would be obvious the size difference between them. Just like you can have the finest pistol in the world but for some work its better to have a yourself rifle .  

I also agree that we wouldn't have gotten the Victoria's if not for the price. Some years ago Ballard Power Systems in B.C. was working on a DND contract to design a AIP plug that could be added to our subs in an upgrade progam and actually had a scalled down working model but this program ended a long time ago. Money probably had something to do with that also.

I know that the LSVW was a dumbed down IVECO , that was my point , on the surface if you had read the manufacturers data and new IVECO'S rep you would have thought we were getting a good veh. BY the way i was recently  talking to a Major who was telling me what a great veh. the LSVW was .  After he left i asked a nearby Sgt. who the Major was he said oh the Major he's in charge of LSVW maintenance.

OUT!


----------



## NavyShooter

Hey gang,

Based on this previous discussion, and some comments I've overheard regaring the CF and a NGS role being looked into, I'm reviving this thread a bit.  (Comments made during a brief to crew by a guy with a leaf on his shoulderboards.)

I had a short discussion with my CSEO when we were at sea last week, and he said I should write something up and run with it, he'd look at it and help out if he could.

So, Here we go.   I've done some more research (Janes online and such) and found out that the Swedish navy has used the 120mm AMOS system on one of their CV-90 boats, as a trial.  So it's not just been thought about, it's been done, and on a platform much smaller than an MCDV.

I also found out some of the statistics on the BAE 120mm AMS.  Here's some vitals:
*
Turret
Crew: 2 (commander and loader)
Turret length:
    (with barrel) 4.68 m
    (without barrel) 2.81 m
Turret width: 2.20 m
Turret height: 0.89 m
Barrel length: 3.00 m
Recoil length:
    (maximum) 600 mm
    (maximum load) 170 kN
Turret weight: 2,800 kg
Maximum range: 9,200 m (with HE M530A1)
Rate of fire: 
    (rapid) 8 rds/min
    (sustained) 4 rds/min
    (MRSI) 4 rds/min
Armament:
    (main) 1 × 120 mm BAE Systems, RO Defence smoothbore breech-loading mortar
    (secondary) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
    (smoke grenade dischargers) 2 × 4
Control:
    (traverse) 360º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
    (elevation) -5 to +80º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
Fire-control system: multitarget input capability with automatic weapon positioning, gun angle calculations and weapon compensation for vehicle attitude and meteorological conditions
Navigation: integrated GPS system for vehicle position, heading and attitude
Optics: integrated all-weather day/night system with thermal imager and integrated laser range-finder for automatic range FCS input * 

Apparently, it also fits in a standard 1700mm turret ring, as per those fitted on the LAVs.  (Meaning also that any LAV turret could be fitted to the ship....)

So, does anyone have comments/suggestsions that might help me with this little paper?  

It may not go anywhere but to my CSEO/CO, but hey, it's an idea, worst case is that I get shot down without leaving the ship.

Best case, the NWT's get a new toy to play with!

NS




> Re: BB or Bust: The Rising Momentum in the USN to Reactivate the BB
> « Reply #50 on: July 15, 2005, 21:05:12 » Quote
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I was leaning towards the 120 type mount because it gives quite good range for the size of weapon.  Also, the footprint of the weapons system on the ship could be limited to the rear portion of one of the torpedo mags.  You'd still be able to carry the tubes, and the torps in the other mag (transfer them over when you need to load/fire the tubes) but with a 120 up top, and the space below, you'd be able to fit a HUGE amount of ammo in there.  Heck, you could even do palletized loadouts, making it a REAL easy system to ammo/de-ammo!
> 
> The bonus that you wouldn't lose the helo capability would be the deciding factor I think.  Losing the helo when you're in a situation where NGS is needed means you've lost a huge extension of your ship's detection bubble.
> 
> The ability to maintain helo ops while doing NGS would mean that you could also be a platform for medevac/etc if needed.
> 
> Another big concern would be the recoil impulse.  An M-109 has a significant amount of it, and mounting just the turret on the flight deck would probably not work out so well (understood not through the deck, but on top of it)....the 120 mortar would have significantly less recoil, and you wouldn't screw up your flight deck certification either.  (Probably have to do a re-cert every time it was mounted/fired, and check for recoil damage.)
> 
> NS
> 
> 
> 
> whiskey601
> "old crow member"
> 
> 
> 
> Re: BB or Bust: The Rising Momentum in the USN to Reactivate the BB
> « Reply #51 on: July 15, 2005, 21:23:20 » Quote
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Would this mortar be something that is snap in and snap out, plug and play etc? If so, would it be a good system to make provisions for on arctic sovereignty ships which can land troops up on some the northern islands? [an idea I have been toying with]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-Dragoon
> Directing Staff
> 
> Re: BB or Bust: The Rising Momentum in the USN to Reactivate the BB
> « Reply #52 on: July 15, 2005, 21:33:08 » Quote
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Quote
> Another big concern would be the recoil impulse.  An M-109 has a significant amount of it, and mounting just the turret on the flight deck would probably not work out so well (understood not through the deck, but on top of it)....the 120 mortar would have significantly less recoil, and you wouldn't screw up your flight deck certification either.  (Probably have to do a re-cert every time it was mounted/fired, and check for recoil damage.)
> 
> Good point on the recoil and flight deck...I guess thats why you are the tech and I am the operator.
> 
> I would like to see some sort of extended range munitions developed for the weapon as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-grunt
> Member
> 
> Re: BB or Bust: The Rising Momentum in the USN to Reactivate the BB
> « Reply #53 on: July 15, 2005, 22:29:46 » Quote
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Quote from: whiskey601 on July 15, 2005, 21:23:20
> Would this mortar be something that is snap in and snap out, plug and play etc?
> 
> When you metinoned this, I immediately thought of the MCDV's modular payload system, I can imagine having 120 mortars mounted on them and in essence creating a coastal gunboat squadron on the cheap. I do not know anything about structural issues that may be involved, but it's a thought.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy Shooter,

I have a concern with the max range of the mortar (9200m= about 4.5NM).  In many parts of the world, the water gets awfully shallow that close to shore, you don't get much "inland reach" when the troops get off of the beach and you are really putting your ship in a position where it can be counterfired on quite easily from the shore.

What is the role that the Swedes intend on using this turret in?  Does that give us any hints on how we might us it?  I guess the better question to ask is:  What role would this turret allow us to perform?  Are there better ways of doing it?

Not intended to discourage you- keep asking questions!


----------



## NCRCrow

being that close in all affords exposure to anti-ship missiles and 130mm mobile anti-navy arty. 

Unless it was for a Force protection measure or protecting LCAC's.

We also need some real fast small patrol missile boats(Harpoon equipped) to protect our new Amphib and give us a psychological edge. Plus be a radar picket and forward protection for the amphib.

Lets say 10 for each coast!! (dream on, I know)


----------



## Kirkhill

> What is the role that the Swedes intend on using this turret in?  Does that give us any hints on how we might us it?  I guess the better question to ask is:  What role would this turret allow us to perform?  Are there better ways of doing it?



SKT:  The Swedes operate in relatively shallow waters in the Baltic but in an area studded with a massive amount of small rocks and islands.  Similar in fact to the 1000 islands area around Kingston but over a larger area and with many outcroppings some of which are only a couple of meters square.  This creates a large maze that if on land couldn't be bettered for creating a defence in depth based on mutual support.  Accordingly they intend to defend these approaches by using an infantry force armed with standard small arms up to 0.50 cal MGs and backed up by weapons like their version of Hellfire which will be fired from tripod stands mounted on shore and deployed by muscle power.  The troops are transported from island to island by a shallow draft, water jet craft known as the Stridsbat 90 or Combat Boat 90.  It is made from aluminum (not clear if it has any armour plate), carries troops under a roof, and has a bow ramp to permit rapid egress directly on to land.  It is a waterborne personnel carrier

This is the boat and the force with which they are looking at employing the AMOS turret. 

It would make a great addition to a riverine or inshore force.  Not quite sure it would make a useful addition to a deepwater vessel's armament.

Pictures below.

Cheers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill- I check your remarks.  The question now for Navy Shooter is: does Canada have a similar enough Defence/geopolotical situation which would warrant the acquisition of the this system?

Remember- to sell DND on purchasing something, you must clearly define the Capability Deficiency that must be filled.  If you can't do that, there is no point in going further.

Cheers!


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok,

Part of my discussion is based on the ability to use 120mm Rocket Assist rounds, that'll get you out to almost 13 km.  True, that's still only 6.5nm, but what are our present capabilities, and what options would exist in the near term (short of getting a new platform, ie CADRE etc) to add NGS to our existing ships?

I don't think anyone would argue that the 57mm is suitable for the NGS role.  

Removing the 57 and replacing it with something bigger is a HUGE engineering project, from magazine layout to hoists, to CCS, etc.

Adding the Land Attack capability to our Harpoons gives us only 8 really big rounds to fire, nothing to followup with.

What other options are there?  

Where do we have space on a CPF to put an NGS system, and what kind of footprint would it require??  

The foc'sle is out.  The flight deck and quarter deck are out if you want to be able to operate helos.  There's no space on top part ship unless we lose our RAS capability on one side.  Take off the RHIB or a Zod?  I don't think so.  Dump half our Sea Sparrows?  Maybe if we had the quad cell ESSM, but we're not getting them...we're only getting the single cannisters.  Bridge wings?  No space, and do you think the CO is going to give up space in his cabin for the system?  I doubt it.  That leaves the hangar.

If we're willing to lose one torpedo magazine (retain both sets of launchers, but only store torps on one side) we have a reasonably sized area to play with for putting in a NGS system.

That said, you're still close to the helo and it's "Barn" so you need to consider recoil...too much recoil would be bad for the helo, so you are limited in what you can put onboard from that perspective.

You're also limited in weight.  Removing the torps gives you about 3 tons to play with (500 lbs each) plust their mounts, etc, so say 3 1/2 tons.  (You have to keep the handling system to load the tubes though.)

So, we've pulled 3 1/2 tons off, and can probably fudge that a bit if we need to, counterballast can be added, or controlled via fuel tanks if it's only a bit of weight.

What weapons systems weigh around 3 tons, can fit into the footprint provided for the space available, don't recoil too much to affect the helo?

Can you guys see any better options?

As for the capability deficiency, well, having a Commodore come down to the Cave and tell us that they're trying to find a way to put a NGS system on a CPF...that sounds like the problem being defined quite clearly.  If a Commodore says that it's a capability that he wants, and needs to have in the not too distant future to be able to support troops going ashore, well, sounds like a Capability Deficiency that needs fixing to me.

A CPF is a multi-role ship.  It's not really great at any one thing....but, giving it another role, in support of the new JTF-A SCTF is not a bad thing, and while the 120mm AMS/AMOS might not be the ideal tool for the job, it's better than a 57mm, it'll fit in the space we have, and we could carry a meaningful loadout of ammo for it.  Also, it'll provide a training and learning platform for employment when we do get a full-blown NGS system on a new class of ship.

Note, there are PGM's available for the 120mm mortar, and new ammo under development giving engagement ranges of 15km:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/x/xm395.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm

http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/mortar.html

So, based on my above assumptions, and thoughts, and presuming that we could get an extra couple of miles or so out of RA rounds, is it a reasonable idea?

Any army guys able to comment on the utility of a 120mm mortar for fire support?  Are they good/bad/useless?  Would a limited capacity missile/rocket system be better?  

NavyShooter


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=913

How about something like this Navy Shooter?

Mounting a 155mm turret in place of the 57mm. The Germans have apparently trialled a PzH 2000 turret on a Sachsen frigate in place of their 76s.  Perhaps some massaging of the missile mix and the CIWS could cover the capability gap that might be created by removing the 57.

That would give you a 40 km PGM capability to use with shipborne UAVs against both shore and surface targets.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I lost a posting in the power outage.

Kirkhill, I like the 155mm turret idea.  Not sure if it would fit on the current 57mm space without significant mods.

I was going to propose building a "fire-support barge" or a "monitor".  Make it fit inside the well-deck of the BHS, put a 120mm mortar turret, 155mm howitzer turret and a MLRS type system on it, give it water-jet propulsion, a bit of armour.  It can be the first thing out the Amphib and move around on it's own doing fire support.  This leaves the CPFs to handle force protection (AAW, ASW, ASUW).  Couple million bucks should do it...

What do you think?


----------



## NavyShooter

One of the key points about the 57 is that there's essentiall no below decks space required, except for the shell hoists, and the electronics associated.

I don't think we'd be able to fit it to a CPF.  Observe the shock mounting system they had to add:  







(I don't think that the whole white painted base is needed, just the upper part with the black shock mounts.)

Turret weight alone is 16.5 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm

Even looking at some other nations projects, the UK's 155mm Future Naval Gun weighs in at an estimated 20-26 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm

The system planned for the DD(X) weighs in at 95 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

Having a seperate Monitor might work, but then, you have to drag it over there with you, reducing your capability to land troops and equipment.  It also means that we have to wait until the BHS gets here to be able to make use of it.

Adding an auto mortar system to a CPF would probably be do-able within a docking work period.  (4-5 months)  If it doesn't work out, the cost of returning the ship to original configuration would be basically the cost of welding over the turret ring, and re-mounting the torpedo blocks.

If it does work, then we've got a platform to learn and establish methods from.  The BHS may end up with a 155 mounting, or the CADRE (or whatever) may end up with one, but I can't see one on a CPF.   It definitely wouldn't work on a 280, they're already top-heavy enough, and the barrel would overlap the VLS Cannisters.

NS


----------



## ringo

Sweden is developing a small amphibious vessels 72.2 feet in length armed with an AMOS turret forward.
Displacement is 40 tons empty 70 tons full load, vessels role is to provide fire support in transit to landing zone, crew of 8, pototype ready 2008 up to 20 units planned.

LPD/LPH carry motar gunboats to area of ops. 

Tribals likely to be replaced by disimilar construction, ie LPH/LPD

Replace frigates with 12 10000 ton vessels similar to Vittorio Veneto, 
4 fire support 
4 ASW
4 AAW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Tribals likely to be replaced by disimilar construction, ie LPH/LPD



What do you base that on? There is already a program underway to replace both the CPF and 280. Search the site and you will see.



> Replace frigates with 12 10000 ton vessels similar to Vittorio Veneto,
> 4 fire support
> 4 ASW
> 4 AAW



Where are we going to get the crews to man 12 cruisers?


----------



## Mortar guy

I love mortars, I really do. But, as I have said before, I just can't see the utility of mounting such a weapon on an ocean-going ship for the purposes of NGS. Here are my reasons:

1) Range - It's just too damn short. The ship would have to get in real close to shore (i.e. easily within enemy artillery, mortar, and ATGM range) and even then would only be able to lob bombs a couple of km inshore, at best. Why risk a CPF that close in to shore for such minimal fire support? The landing force would out-run their NGS fire support within minutes of landing.

2) Trajectory - Mortars fire high angle and the bombs have a very long time of flight. This makes them very susceptible to weather with the resulting degradation of accuracy. Oceans tend to be windy places - no good for mortars. The swedes will use their AMOS/Combt boat combo in an archipelago where the weather is slightly tamer.

3) Utility - An AMOS turret on a CPF would be of use for only one thing - NGS. A multi-purpose gun could handle NGS, ASuW, and even AA depending on the type.

So, all that being said, I would suggest that we either avoid mounting the AMOS on the CPF or find a more suitable platform. One option I can think of off the top of my head would be the LCUs the BHS will carry. I'm not talking about a monitor, I'm talking about an armed landing craft that can still carry vehicles and troops but can shoot itself ashore. I'm sure our shipbuilding industry could design a modified Mk 10 LCU with an AMOS turret to fit the bill.

Complimentary to this would be the Tribals' 76mm guns which, although not perfect, can still fire NGS with twice the range of the AMOS and with a high rate of fire. Also with Block II Harpoon for precision strike you would have a nice triad of weapons capable of providing fire support.

The BHS should come equipped with some system to provide NGS whether that be rockets (Naval MLRS or NTACMS), guns (MONARC, 5") or flying bombardment monkeys. OK, I made that last one up.

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I wonder if an upgraded form of the CRV7 might be an option?


----------



## George Wallace

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> One of the key points about the 57 is that there's essentiall no below decks space required, except for the shell hoists, and the electronics associated.
> 
> I don't think we'd be able to fit it to a CPF.  Observe the shock mounting system they had to add:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I don't think that the whole white painted base is needed, just the upper part with the black shock mounts.)



Um!    That whole 'White painted Base" is known as a "Turret Stand".  It is used to rest a Turret on when it is removed from an armoured vehicle.  The shock mountings are probably installed because of the trials they are conducting, and the Turret Stand in this case, although a rather robust one, is still not the same as the vehicle the turret would normally be mounted on.  This would probably be to prolong the life of the Stand and also in some way imitate the motion of the vehicle suspension when the weapon is fired.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK - I like the monitor idea.  But then Ringo has an idea wrt the Swedish boats that I mentioned.  If we are going to carry boats on board the LPH/LPH/BHS why not carry 4-6 of the Swedish CBHs with some or all of them mounting AMOS just like Navy Shooter is suggesting, and possibly any other system that can be mounted on a 20 tonne vehicle.  
Ex-Dragoon's CRV-7s, mounted in bundles of 19 would probably get the job done as well,  especially seeing as how the laser guided APKWS version is moving along.  I think a 2.5 tonne truck could carry 6x19 ready to fire rounds on its bed or 114 total.  

Then you have boats for conducting fire support, landing troops, conducting patrols or just supplying local security for the BHS while she is firm.   They could be launched from the well or from davits.

More grist for the mill perhaps....


----------



## Kirkhill

Thinking this one through a little more......

The CBH-90/Strb-90 (http://www.soldf.com/strb90h.html - sorry for the non-english spec sheet) weighs about as much as a LAVIII (14.3-17.3 T for a LAV vs 13.3 to 20.5 T for the boat) and is about as big as a Griffon (17.1m x 2.3 m for the Helo vs 15.9m x 3.8 m for the boat).  That would suggest to me that putting a 6-pack of these boats on a BHS might not present an intolerable burden.  Especially seeing as how they wouldn't have to be carried inside.  Like the Landing Craft and Boats for the JSS the could be carried outside and deployed on davits.

They carry 21 troops or 4.5 tonnes of Cargo with a range of 660 km at a speed of around 40 kts.  There is an armoured version (the HS has bullet proof glass, 38 mm plastic and 6 mm steel in combination - probably 5.56/7.62 proof?).

Weapons are usually 3 0.50 mounts but other weapons suites have included 30mm cannons reclaimed from Swedish Drakken fighters, Hellfire AT missiles and of course the AMOS-120 mortar system.

So if we put this together - How about the navy gets into a small boat solution for NGS?  Naval APCs for landing special forces, local and riverine security, escort force for landing craft and finally, adding a whole new dimension to boarding parties.  Arm most of the boats with a 25-30mm RWS with Hellfires or CRV-7s and a couple or more with the AMOS-120 (PGM, 14km range, 155mm equivalent effect).

Edit: In fact how about replacing the RHIBs on the CPFs and DDHs with the Naval APC with 25mm RWS?

Edit2: And finally the Ice-breakers and the JSS could also make suitable transport/launch platforms for this type of craft.  It could find employment in the Arctic in summer months, on the West Coast year round and on the St-Lawrence and the Great Lakes.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Edit: In fact how about replacing the RHIBs on the CPFs and DDHs with the Naval APC with 25mm RWS?



Not a tech or a bosun but you would definitely have to change out the crane and the hyrdraulics to embark one of these naval apc's onboard. Would they be necessary for a FFH or DDH I think they would be kind of overkill, don't forget we also use the RHIB in addition to our zodiacs for rescue work and administration.


----------



## Kirkhill

Understood Ex-Dragoon - and I guess at 15 to 20 tonnes apiece, akin to the weight of the 155mm turret that Navy Shooter was having difficulty with, it would present similar ballasting challenges.....still.....

Ice-breakers, JSS and BHS would still present interesting launch platforms for carrying a useful number individually and combined.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I feel we should keep the FFHs and DDHs out of the troop moving business and let them focus on the escort and protection role. Thats not to say we should never embark troops but to do so on a regular basis would drastically change our mission profile.


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I feel we should keep the FFHs and DDHs out of the troop moving business and let them focus on the escort and protection role. Thats not to say we should never embark troops but to do so on a regular basis would drastically change our mission profile.



Not to mention that escort tend to be the first on the receiving end of anti-ship missiles.  Imagine a company of british soldiers on HMS Sheffeild in 1982 !!!


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon and aesop081:

I take your point about embarking troops on escorts.  Actually I wasn't considering that for the existing CPFs and DDHs.  I was more thinking along the lines of supplying an alternative to the RHIBs for the boarding party and also for supplying security while in port.

On the other hand I note that carrying a party of marines is not uncommon in other navies.  Perhaps the new single-hull concept could be designed with a ship to shore capability in mind as well?  Similar to the Global Cruiser concept brought up by whiskey and a_majoor amongst others.....OT drifting back to original thread from which this one was split.....apologies.

A bit closer to the subject at hand....Would it be in the interests of the Navy, or would the Navy be interested in, these type of small boat operations?  Perhaps they could be seen as extensions of your patrol and escort duties, as well as supplying NGS, moving your capabilities right up to the high-tide line.  

Getting back to the NGS role - even if we just looked at the CBH-AMOS - that would supply a system that could supply NGS up to 14 km inland, that could manoeuver to the enemy and away from enemy fire at 40 to 45 knots, that would present a very small an manoeuverable target and would only put a small number of personnel at risk.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think it only makes sense for us to get into Brown Water Ops and establish a doctrine for us to be able to operate in this enviroment. The threat seems to be getting closer and closer to shore and we need to be ready for that aspect of warfare. That being said, in no way shape and form do I advocate getting away from the blue water side of the house. We need that capability now as we did during the Cold War.

CBH-AMOS- as a 120mm, how many personnel would we actually be able to carry whilst carrying a decent amount of the stuff that goes boom?rfare


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok, 

Had discussion with another engineer who's more in the know than I, and he basically said thus:



> pay attention to the upper slope of the hangar top away from the mezzanine deck - don't think she'll fit let alone rotate plus still too heavy for the deck





> In the short analysis - there is not a lot of upper deck real estate as you noticed on a CPF to drop something big into so I can't see how it can be feasible without finding new capability in the systems we already have (ie using new ammo).



So, basically, no-where further to go with my 120mm idea.

Dang, it seemed so reasonable to me.

(Not to mention all the flak I've been getting from you guys!)

So, whereto from here?  

Perhaps a modular system that could be fitted to an MCDV?  Like the personnel modules they drop onto the sweep deck?  

MCDV's could operate a LOT closer inshore than a CPF, with a 3.4m Draft, that's basically less than 50% that of a Frigate.

I wonder what the rated load is for their sweep deck?  

They'd be a lot more vulnerable to return fire, as they have little in the way of self defense (no automated defensive capability like CIWS) but it's also a much less, um, valuable unit if one is lost?  

So, let's say we get a bunch of containerized systems built up, capable of being placed on the sweep deck of an MCDV....this might be the interm way ahead to get a test bed for the Monitor you guys are thinking on.

What sort of packages might be good to have?  I'm thinking:

1.  AMOS system






2.  MLRS (of some sort) system 







I don't think an MCDV is an ideal platform for this, but if we had a package that could get bolted onto them, well, that might be a start?

Now, that said, I wonder if there's a bolt-on autonomous self-defense system (anti-missile/air capable) that might be able to fit in place of the 40mm on the foc'sle?  

NS


----------



## Kirkhill

If arthur is monitoring this he can start groaning now....



> While the LCS will be equipped with a 57mm gun and Netfires surface-to-surface missiles, the vessel will rely on its off-board vehicles to find or take on an enemy ship. The unmanned helicopters and surface vessels will carry electro-optical and infrared surveillance equipment, and the MH-60R manned helicopter will be able to attack with Hellfire missiles and a gun pod. Eventually, Landay said, Netfires and a 30mm unmanned gun will be placed aboard the 11-meter unmanned surface vehicles.



http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=328015

Or this - Check out Slide 8 or 15

http://128.121.188.113/SNALuncheonBrief,RDML(s)Spicer10Aug04rev3.pdf

Or this

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/firesupport/NETFIRES/product-NETFIRES.html

15 rounds in a container weighing less than a tonne.  Launch from the container anywhere on the deck.  Range 40 to 70 km.  Warhead - equivalent to Hellfire or about 10 kg.  Developmental - maybe never.

As to how many rounds in CBH-AMOS given weight restrictions I am GUESSING it would be a load similar to an APC or something in the 50 to 100 rounds range.  And I think the AMOS craft would be strictly for fire support with little room for Troops - they would have to come in another craft.

I note that the CBH-90 is about the same size as the Brits LCVP Mk5 which is slower at 24 kts but carries 35 troops or a couple of light vehicles.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

How practical would it be to have an NGS floating barge? Fit each barge with a number of mounting rings on the port and starboard quarters, a number of bigger rings down the centerline and you could have a plug and play system that you can replace depending on mission fit. The rings on the quarters could be utilized for rocket pods and small caliber autocannons. The rings on the centreline would be for larger caliber guns (105mm+).
  The barge could be towed in place and anchors dropped when it reaches its designated firepoint. Yeah it would be vulnerable to counter battery fire and would be as maneuverable as a Strat after 1 beer. . Hmmmm, although there are self propelled barges out there. Thoughts?


----------



## NavyShooter

Just thinking on this a bit more.

I like the little rocket packs....kinda neat.  Netfires.  Put a bunch in the hangar, drive 'em out onto the flight-deck on the Bear-trap, presto-change-o, you've got a mobile MLRS!

Seriously though, you could plunk a couple of these packs in the torpedo mags, and wheel them out of the hangar and fire them from the flight deck.  Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's pretty much self-contained.  

Anyhow, back to my 120mm mortar idea on a CPF...I came across an obscure reference to a version B AMOS, which is lighter, (aluminium turret for shipboard use) and weighs in at 2800 kg, and ranges out to 13 km.

I've written up a draft memo to my CSEO to look at, and both he and the A/CSEO have looked at it and think it's worth further investigation at higher levels.  Heck, my CSEO suggested putting it into the MAR ENG journal too.  

Here's an exerpt from it:  



> 5.	To expand a CPF’s capabilities to include NGS without significantly impacting current shipboard capabilities, there is only one potential location for installation, the Starboard Hangar mezzanine deck.  Removing the torpedoes from the Starboard magazine but retaining the launchers and handling gear to load the tubes would still allow the ship to engage submarine threats from both sides, but would remove several tons of weight, and enable the potential installation of a deck penetrating gun turret system.  The reduction in magazine capacity for torpedoes by 50% is significant, but is the least reduction in ships capabilities to allow the addition of a Naval Gunnery Support system.  Placing the system on the Starboard side also places the CIWS on the side that would be most likely presented with a return fire threat from ashore, enhancing the ship’s response capabilities.
> 
> 6.	The following aspects need to be considered for selecting an appropriate system:
> 
> a.	With the proximity to the hangar, and the need to sustain helicopter operations, a system with reduced recoil characteristics should be selected;
> 
> b.	The weight of the system should be less than 3 tons (equivalent to the weight of the torpedoes removed
> 
> c.	Additional weight for structural strength supporting the installation;
> 
> d.	The system should be gyro-stabilized to allow stabilized firing;
> 
> e.	There must be a capability for firing Precision Guided Munitions;
> 
> f.	A of sustainable amount of ammunition must be capable being carried; and
> 
> g.	System must be Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) to reduce costs.



And:



> 10. 	The acquisition of this system will allow the Navy to begin to interact with land forces in support operations prior to the acquisition of new ships with an integrated NGS system installed.  This will allow the doctrine governing NGS to be developed and trialed prior to the creation of a new surface combatant.  Feedback from this installation would allow improvements to be made to the design of any following systems.
> 
> 11.  	This system will provide the Navy with a place in future joint operations, and demonstrate that we are leading the way in changing for the future of the CF.



So, there's some bits....yes, I said I'd let it go, but it still seems reasonable, all the more-so with a lighter system.

Anyhow, rip me to shreds again gang...I'm going to jump on my sword here, ok?

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I was not a big fan of the AMOS originally but I like this approach. Just a couple of questions though:
1) Will embarking on of these mortars cause flight operations to be hampered especially with the new helos coming into service.
2) Maybe someone more familiar with mortar usage can correct me but is there not a seperate propellant charge along with the shell. Would they not have to have seperate magazines in our safety conscious navy?
3) Would we be able to (re) establish NGS procedures using a mortar and carrying it over to a new NGS system when the CPF and 280 replacements come on line?


----------



## NavyShooter

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I was not a big fan of the AMOS originally but I like this approach. Just a couple of questions though:
> 1) Will embarking on of these mortars cause flight operations to be hampered especially with the new helos coming into service.
> 2) Maybe someone more familiar with mortar usage can correct me but is there not a seperate propellant charge along with the shell. Would they not have to have seperate magazines in our safety conscious navy?
> 3) Would we be able to (re) establish NGS procedures using a mortar and carrying it over to a new NGS system when the CPF and 280 replacements come on line?



1.  I'm on the Montreal, and the flight deck survey and mods that are being done seem to be confined to the Beartrap and it's track.  I've had my ASIS ripped apart and re-insulated for the survey.  They did not do anthing like that to the hangar, so I'm presuming that the hangar area will not be significantly affected, excepting the deck.  If the ship is actually in the midst of flight ops, it's likely that they'd come to a flying course, which would probably inhibit the NGS ops.  

2.  I don't know, but if you need to separate the charges, well, there's another torpedo mag on the port side you can use....

3.  We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea.  

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> 3.  We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea.



What I mean is would the same principals be able to be carried over from a mortar system to maybe a gun system.



> I like the little rocket packs....kinda neat.  Netfires.  Put a bunch in the hangar, drive 'em out onto the flight-deck on the Bear-trap, presto-change-o, you've got a mobile MLRS!
> 
> Seriously though, you could plunk a couple of these packs in the torpedo mags, and wheel them out of the hangar and fire them from the flight deck.  Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's pretty much self-contained.



How much damage would the rocket exhaust do to the flight deck?


----------



## commando gunner

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What I mean is would the same principals be able to be carried over from a mortar system to maybe a gun system.



Depends what you mean. Ballistically a round in the air is a round in the air whether it came out of a mortar or a gun-however, having said that there are indeed numerous differences between mortars and guns mainly connected with muzzle velocity (most mortars are low) , spin (most mortars do not spin via a driving band)  and trajectory (mortars are generally high angle) and these all have a profound effect-for various technical reasons - on first round accuracy as well as consistency.  

IMHO the AMOS on a boat is a marketing ploy.  13 to maybe 16 Km - with rocket assist -is just not enough range for NGS- remember we want some usable range inland as well, not to mention reliable accuracy.  As pointed out by others previously most NGS guns have multiple utility in other roles as well-be they ship to ship or anti aircraft and something that is just a mortar does not cut it.  OK, it may be of awesome use in a river delta boat for sure, but as our sole gun, forget it!

What we need is a decent capability that has multiple utility - long range as well as ammo choice.  Something along the lines of a 155 would be ideal
and indeed this was specified in the now defunct CADRE spec.

PS  I have a bit of an idea what I am talking about- I have directed ships guns as an NGFO in a previous life  from 76mm up to Iowas 16 Inch (just had to get that in!).


----------



## NavyShooter

Heya Commando Gunner,

Glad to have input from someone who's called in fire before.  

I agree, having a long range, multiple utility gun would be a good thing, but we will not see that on a CPF.  There just isn't the space unless they stretched the ship (not gonna happen, and the stretch would be midships as per the info on the CASR site a while back.)

I know that for the future ships that are being planned, there is an intent to include a NGS role/capability, but the steel won't be cut on those ships for years.  

How can we get _some _ capability in the near term?

If we got a system like the 120mm AMOS, and backed it up with a deepstrike capability like SLAM (Land attack Harpoon) which is feasible since we already have Harpoon fitted, well, would that be worthwhile?

From the brief we got on the ship earlier in the month, there's going to be (near term) a transport ship of some sort available to prove the deployability of the SCTF.  If the SCTF needs gunnery support going ashore somewhere, what can we provide right now??   57mm or 76mm.  The 76 only has a range of 20,000 yards, the 57 kicks out to around 17,000 with the HCER ammo.    Is a gun system that's able to drop a heavier weight of fire at 75% of the best range we can hit now all that bad??

No, it's not a 155, nor a 16" (wow, I've touched them before, but cannot imagine the blast when they fire!) but it's something that we can learn from before we do get the big guns.

Is some capability now better than no capability until we get a new class of ship?  I think so.  Especially when I probably will not see those ships in the water in my career.

I think that's the essence of my point of view.  We're not gong to see a new class of ship for years.  That means we're not going to see a dedicated or ideal NGS system at sea for years.  If we want to get on the "Joint" bandwagon, and have the ability (which the Commodore stated he's seeking) to do NGS and deliver PGM's, we may have to live with compromise.  Putting a CPF closer inshore to provide NGS brings back the stories of the USN destroyers doing just that a couple thousand yards offshore from Omaha Beach in 1944. 

NS


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea.



That is true and over the last 10 years we let NGS wither and almost die on the vine. I remember playing with the NGS wheels when I was on YUKON but that was it until last November during TG-EX 5-05. ALGONQUIN, CALGARY, and REGINA conduct NGS shoots at the range off San Diego. The guys I talked to said it went well, although I think they were able to find some of the "wheels" in the museum to help them out. I am pretty sure that there are computer programs out there that would do the job faster and more accurate. 
My other question is this; will the NGS observer ashore be army or navy?


----------



## commando gunner

FSTO said:
			
		

> That is true and over the last 10 years we let NGS wither and almost die on the vine. I remember playing with the NGS wheels when I was on YUKON but that was it until last November during TG-EX 5-05. ALGONQUIN, CALGARY, and REGINA conduct NGS shoots at the range off San Diego. The guys I talked to said it went well, although I think they were able to find some of the "wheels" in the museum to help them out. I am pretty sure that there are computer programs out there that would do the job faster and more accurate.
> My other question is this; will the NGS observer ashore be army or navy?



As I understand it we only have a direct ( aimed at the target using gun sight or other remote pointing method)  57 or 76 capability - not an indirect one where the ballistic/firing solution is calculated mathematically and the round fired indirectly.  ?????

The short term cheap answer is to outfit the 76 with the indirect capability.  Small it might be but it has a high rate of fire and is much better than nothing.  As my experience is limited to being the end user of what comes out of ships guns,  I have no real idea what extra is required in this case-software / lindirect laying mechanisms or what??  

NGS famil is taught at the Arty School to FOOs and BCs as well as some staff planning famil on the Arty Ops crse.  All pretty basic but anyone who can direct arty fire, understands some of the characteristics of NGS, allocation procedures and can read the NATO NGS pub ATP 8 (E) can shoot NGS. Conducting a simultaneous twin target coord illum takes a lot more though....

Army or Navy?  Stick to what you do best.  Driving ships and pointing guns at the shore = Navy job, Living in holes, yomping around and directing fire = Army job, especially where Advance Force work is concerned, however having said that, in one of my previous incarnations, in UK's 148 Bty,  I had a naval communicator for expert morse work as one of my 3 guys (all parties had one).  Poor guys came out of a ships commcen having never worn boots and had to pass Commando crse and P company as well as the Naval Gunfire Basic crse in order to serve in the bty.  Smalll wonder that after all that huge effort the few who got in typically transferred to the army after their tour was up.  Ideally each ship conducting NGS also has an army  NGLO on board to speak army (or English when working with some of the more exotic navies!)-at least when missions are being conducted rather than full time that is.


----------



## NavyShooter

So,

Having someone on the ship that can deal with the "Army-speak" is a good thing, and having someone ashore who can do the "Navy-Speak" is a good thing too.

I guess it comes down to working together (that whole joint thing again) 

We've had Army guys on ships before, the MON transported a bunch during Narwhal, they loved the Cave and the Beer machine...some didn't want to leave!

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

*snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> *snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >



I still think you screwed up Ex-D..........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I still think you screwed up Ex-D..........



Sadly there are days when I would agree with you...


----------



## navymich

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> *snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >



I think my light has broken ex-D.  This sailor girl is looking to turning to the blue sky, vice the blue waters....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

NavyShooter,

I think that you are doing some good work by asking questions and questioning the status quo in the Navy.  I'm not sure that forcing a 120mm mortar on to a frigate is the way to go.  It is a bit of a one trick pony (only good for NGS), too short ranged (13km), very subject to Met (all mortars are because of the high trajectory and long time of flight).  I'm not sure what adding a 120mm mortar gives a ship that the 57mm doesn't already have.

As for launching rockets from the flight deck and it's effects- I can shed some light on that.  I commanded the Javelin missile troop on HMCS PROTECTEUR during Gulf War 1.  On the way across the Atlantic, we fired about 60 missiles from the flight deck in training.  We broke several dustpan lights and took the deck down to bare metal in several places with our backblast.  The flight stoker and electrician were not amused.  Short answer- firing rockets from the flight deck will probably do some damage and it will foul the deck for flights ops (obviously).  That may or may not be a big deal, depending on what the OTC's plan look's like.

I still like my "gun barge" idea


----------



## NavyShooter

SKT,

I think that a barge, towed into place and parked, then used for NGS wouldn't really be the way to go.  

Defensively, I think it's a non-starter.  You'll end up having to designate a ship (probably a frigate, 280's would guard the JSS/BHS) to act as guard on it, otherwise it's vulnerable to any threat, air or surface, and particularly subsurface.   If you have a frigate designated to guard it, then that frigate's got to be close, (Sea Sparrow are currently only for point defense) so the frigate will be inshore close enough that it might as well be the gun platform instead.  If you put defensive gear on the barge, you're on your way to a multi-role unit, and to get defensive gear, it's going to be a compromise in some way, so none of it will be ideal, so you're back to making trade-offs the way you would in putting NGS onto a frigate.  The Canadian Navy doesn't seem too much into the "small boat" thing.  I think you'd be better off finding a NGS package you could fit onto a sweep deck of an MCDV.

The 57mm can put down a great weight of fire, but with only 410 gr of HE filler per round (janes).  A 120mm round has an average of 2.8 KG HE filler per round.  That's 700% more!  You have to get 7 hits with a 57 to deliver the same weight of fire as a 120.  A 57mm gun's hot gun procedure is required after only a small number of rounds have been fired (ie less than 200) which means you're not going to get to fire a whole lot of ammo in the run of a day.  If you fire the complete turret load of 57, you've only dumped 49 KG of HE.  The 120mm mortar can fire that much HE with 17.5 rounds.  Basically just over one minutes' worth of firing.  (16 rpm max ROF)

A 57 can fire 17 km with HCER (janes) and with ER ammo, a 120mm mortar can reach 13 km, and the new XM395 PGMM is looking at extending ranges out to 15 km with GPS/laser guidance.  Range is not a significant factor if we can get out to 15 km.  Even 13 km is 76% of the range of a 57's range.  If we get the 15 k range, that gives us 88% of the range of the 57, with a precision guided capability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm







1.  The 120 would let us fire Precision guided munitions, something the 57mm will never be able to do.  

2.  The 120 would give us a stand-alone NGS capability, letting us keep the 57mm for defensive fires.

3.  The 120 would let us re-learn how to do NGS before we end up strapped with a big honking gun on a new class of ship and us not know how to shoot it effectively.

4.  Giving a Frigate a marginal NGS capability now is better than not having any real capability until our next new class of ship comes along.

For me though, the real clincher is the Precision Guided Munitions capability.  The Commodore stated that he was looking at a way to fit a PGM NGS system.  The PGM capability is something that a 57mm or even the 76 don't have, and won't have.  

NavyShooter


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the "Pocket VLS" option -  15 rounds from a box weighing approximately 1 tonne and occupying about 1 cu.m. or the space of a standard civilian shipping pallet.  10 such pallets, or 150 ready rounds, will fit in the foot print of a 20 foot Sea Can.  All of them are precision attack systems.  Some of them can loiter and conduct real-time recce to allow targeting of the other missiles prior to attacking a target itself.

40 km or 21 NM range for the rocket powered PAM and 70 km plus 30 minutes of loiter time for the turbo-jet powered LAM.

This also allows for a missile to be launched to investigate a contact at which time the operator can decide to abort the attack, prosecute the attack with one missile or multiple, or just put "a shot across the bows" of the target.

Video of launch from deck of Sea Slice at sea.  There doesn't seem to be much risk of damage to the deck from the launch.

http://ness.external.lmco.com/nessb/video/fbe-j/netfires.html

Notice of successful Sea State 3 launch




> NetFires LLC Successfully Conducts Navy Ballistic Flight Test for the NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missile
> 
> 
> (Source: Raytheon Company; issued March 28, 2006)
> 
> 
> TUCSON, Ariz. --- The NetFires Limited Liability Company (LLC), composed of Raytheon Missile Systems and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, successfully conducted a ballistic test vehicle (BTV) flight test for the Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System (NLOS-LS) Precision Attack Missile (PAM) at the Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., test range Feb. 16.
> 
> The successful PAM flight test represents a significant milestone for both the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) weaponization goals and for the NLOS-LS program. NLOS-LS PAM and Container Launch Unit (CLU) have been selected as a surface warfare weapon for the LCS, the Navy's next-generation multi-mission ship.
> 
> The PAM missile BTV was vertically launched from the NLOS-LS CLU that was integrated onto a motion simulator. The ship motion simulator is able to replicate a range of sea conditions that the LCS is likely to encounter while under way. The PAM BTV flight test was conducted in upper-sea-state-three conditions to demonstrate the safe egress of the PAM missile from the CLU. Sea state three represents conditions where a vessel experiences three- to five-foot waves and winds exceeding 15 knots.
> 
> "We're extremely pleased with this first shoot-on-the-move demonstration of the combined PAM and CLU," said Nelson B. Mills, LCS Surface Warfare project lead, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va. "The PAM missile's performance specification for the U. S. Navy requires that the missile is capable of being fired from a moving platform experiencing diverse movements along all three axes. This demonstration was a significant accomplishment in engineering for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship as well as the Army's Future Combat System."
> 
> "The successful PAM BTV flight test for the Navy is another example of the demonstrated technical maturity of the NLOS-LS PAM missile and CLU," said Scott Speet, executive vice president of the NetFires LLC and Raytheon's NLOS-LS program director. "The ability of the PAM and the CLU to meet the Navy and Army performance requirements is a credit to the design team and the close system engineering work between Raytheon and our Navy and Army customers."
> 
> The NLOS-LS system consists of Raytheon's PAM, Lockheed Martin's Loitering Attack Missile and a joint CLU. In 2004, the Army accelerated fielding of the Raytheon PAM and joint CLU to the Army's Evaluation Brigade Combat Team into Spin Out 1 in fiscal year 2008.
> 
> The Navy selected NLOS-LS PAM and CLU as the premier engagement capability against surface warfare threats for the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy expects to build more than 50 LCSs with the first ships commissioned in fiscal year 2008.
> 
> NLOS-LS provides a commander with immediate, precise and responsive fires on high-payoff targets with real-time target acquisition and battle effects. PAM is a direct-attack missile that is effective against moving and stationary targets on land and sea at ranges from zero to 21 nautical miles and is effective against hard and soft targets. The missile includes a networked datalink that provides in-flight updates to each missile with ground and airborne sensor nodes and has a large multi-mode warhead effective against both hard and soft targets.
> 
> 
> Raytheon Company, with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide.
> 
> Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 135,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------



## ringo

For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

ringo said:
			
		

> For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
> I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability.



I didn't even know Schelde made an Enforcer that big....I thought they maxxed out at 22,000 tonnes.  That being said, I've seen a picture of Navantia LHD design and I like it very, very much....especially the ski jump.  :-X 

The other vessel I would think would be of interest should be the French Mistral-class....although it's smaller than the other two vessels mentioned.


Matthew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## FSTO

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?
> 
> 
> Matthew.   ???



Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!   

Ve haf unt intruter who ist tinking viff LOGIC!!! Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ringo said:
			
		

> For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
> I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability.



Canada is looking at several designs for the BHS, some of which have already been discussed here. The 280s will stick around probably til 2012-14 and by then the next generation Surface Combatant also discussed within the navy forum will be replacing both the 280s and the CPFs. These will supposedly number 16-18. Where do you get the FLEXDECK? Do you have a source or are you speculating?


----------



## ringo

Unless there is a huge increase in defence budget I don't believe there will be funds for more than a dozen new surface combat ships.
For maximum versatility I think three versions of a monohull design will be built, ie air defence C&C, ASW general purpose, a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.
New surface ships will be larger than those now in service with greater endurance and range for worldwide deployments. 
Just my 2 cents.

The Dutch are designing a ship similiar to JSS.

Lastly Canada should consider purchasing the LSL Sir Galahad from UK to provide an interm sealift till JSS are built.


----------



## cobbler

> As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?
> 
> 
> Matthew.




It would be a good idea if it could happen.
But the RAN is a lot further on in the procurement process, and cannot afford it to be stalled or held up. Also Australia already has the whole amphibious ops doctrine worked out and so knows what it needs, I don't think you guys are quite so certain about what you require in both a ship and its systems. 

But i think more cooperation would be beneficial for both the RAN and Canadian maritime command (or whatever its called this month), it would have been ideal if you had jumped on the collins bandwagon, in an perfect world we would work together in the future Halifax/Anzac replacements (cause NZ didn't exactly match up with Aus's requirements, we are both paying the price for that now).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Unless there is a huge increase in defence budget I don't believe there will be funds for more than a dozen new surface combat ships.
> For maximum versatility I think three versions of a monohull design will be built, ie air defence C&C, ASW general purpose, a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.
> New surface ships will be larger than those now in service with greater endurance and range for worldwide deployments.



Dp you know this for a fact ot is it just conjecture on your part?


----------



## commando gunner

ringo said:
			
		

> ..., a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.



Just like the ALSC concept this would be like making an ambulance the tow truck as well, just because they are going to the same acccident.  Designated hospital ships cannot provide fire support either...


PS...this thread was spilt from the JSS debate so we could get into detail on AAD and NGS, this seems to be  resurgence of JSS debate.


----------



## ringo

A ship dose't have to be designated a hospital ship to have substandial medical facilities on board.

Dragoon, just a gut feeling, Canada's defence buget too stretched to by more than 12 destroyers JSS BHS new trucks helos cargo aircraft, the list goes on and on, and is the fault of sucesssive goverments  providing DND with insufficient funding.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ringo said:
			
		

> A ship dose't have to be designated a hospital ship to have substandial medical facilities on board.
> 
> Dragoon, just a gut feeling, Canada's defence buget too stretched to by more than 12 destroyers JSS BHS new trucks helos cargo aircraft, the list goes on and on, and is the fault of sucesssive goverments  providing DND with insufficient funding.



Gotcha but by the time JSS/BHS prgrams are started there will be new money in the budget as it will be several years latter.


----------



## ringo

Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.
As for a timeline I would think Felex will be underway in concert with JSS construction a BHS likely to follow, Tribals will certainly all be gone by 2015, this would be a good time to begin production of new surface combatant.
Halifax replacement need have room for 2 Cyclone helo's, the new ships need much more room for growth and be more flexible perhaps using modular techniques.
All the while maritime command must compete with air and ground elements of CAF.
For interim sealift the LSL Sir Galahad could be purchased from UK at modest cost and requires limited crew renting an old steam driven LPD would be a moneypit.
Budget wise CAF need 2% GNP divided as evenly as possible between the three services.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.


Don't really think you can use that as guideline.



> As for a timeline I would think Felex will be underway in concert with JSS construction a BHS likely to follow, Tribals will certainly all be gone by 2015, this would be a good time to begin production of new surface combatant.


That seems to be the general consesus.



> Halifax replacement need have room for 2 Cyclone helo's, the new ships need much more room for growth and be more flexible perhaps using modular techniques.


Why? While it would be beneficial to sail with 2 helos, the 280s have been sailing with only 1 for awhile. Ideally with the Cyclones reliabity will increase and we won't have to keep shipping them over via freighter.Agrred with the modular aspects but these days that is a given and they tend to look at a 20-30 life cycle of a ship.



> For interim sealift the LSL Sir Galahad could be purchased from UK at modest cost and requires limited crew renting an old steam driven LPD would be a moneypit.


Maybe but is it up for sale?


----------



## Mortar guy

> Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.
> Don't really think you can use that as guideline.



The SCSC project is currently calling for 18 ships built over a 20 year+ timeframe to replace both the Tribals and the Frigates. If you have access to the DIN, go to the Capabilities Initiative Database and look up the SCSC project and you'll find loads of information. The last SRB presentation is the one that provide the best detail.

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> The SCSC project is currently calling for 18 ships built over a 20 year+ timeframe to replace both the Tribals and the Frigates. If you have access to the DIN, go to the Capabilities Initiative Database and look up the SCSC project and you'll find loads of information. The last SRB presentation is the one that provide the best detail.
> 
> MG



Thank you for reinforcing my point.


----------



## ringo

The trend of all the western navies has been a reduction in the numbers of surface combatants, primarily due to the high cost of replacement vessels, a case in point the RN Type 45 6 vessels to replace the Type 42's.
The Halifax class was to have a further 6 vessels.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yes but the added tempo the Canadian Navy has been under since the end of the Cold War has only reiterated to the brass and the powers that are that more ships are better. 18 warships is not a large number when it boils down to the facts. I think you will see us get between 14-18 of the SCSC when it comes online.


----------



## ringo

I'll believe it when I see the ships in the water as for now its all talk, no ships are on order and none are building.
From Canada's Navy 1985 " 24 warships would be required to just meet needs assigned by the Navy by the then current government, however acquisition of Leopard MBT's, Aurora's and CF-18's, the program was tailored back to 20 ships". 
Those 20 planned ships became 12 Halifax frigates, if Canada's navy receives more than 12 Halifax/DDH
replacements I'll be very surprised, the BHS may take money from frigate replacement program the  icebreaker program may have same effect.
With the multitude of DND programs requiring funding there will need to be very significant increases in future defence budget's, to fund all programs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The key word is _may_ ringo and being a sailor I have to remain somewhat optimistic that the SCSC program will ccome about.


----------



## Armymatters

If you ask me, given the current tempo of our deployments overseas by the Navy, we can use at least 20 major warships (Halifax/Tribal replacements).
My explaination why:
Maintain a standing task force in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: 1 DD type warship, plus 3 FFG's, and an AOR on standby each ocean (8 major warships, 2 AOR's)
Deployments with American carrier groups: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)
Deployments and commitments to NATO and UN: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)
Maritime patrol work: 4 frigates
Maintenance/Crew familiarization/training: 4 warships (2 DD type, 2 FFG type
Total: 8+2+2+4+4 = 20 major warships of the DD/FFG type (both Tribal and Halifax replacements).
Otherwise, the tempo of deployment may be unsustainable in the long term, meaning that even though the government would like to send a warship out for deployment, no major warships are avaiable due to maintenance or them being out on some sort of deployment already.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Armymatters, 

Your numbers IMHO are not too bad.  The 4 ships that you have allocated to CVBG/NATO/UN ops would, in reality probably be drawn from the high-readiness TG from each coast.  !6 major combattants (not including Icebreakers, JSS and BHSs) would be a reasonable number for our Navy, given the waterspace we cover.  But, since when has "reasonable" or even "adequate" been a driving factor in how we buy kit for the military...

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can't stress enough there needs to be a significant event to change the ideology before the money starts to flow. It is not a question of whether Canada can afford new stuff (becaus we certainly can afford it, painlessly IMO)-  its whether they want it at all. In my view, Canadians don't want new military equipment, they don't see any need for it and would rather money be spent on other things, or not at all.  

Frankly, I don't think most Canadians would even care if another country came and took large chunks of our lands- as long as it does not affect them directly or in a way that the governement can't compensate them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> If you ask me, given the current tempo of our deployments overseas by the Navy, we can use at least 20 major warships (Halifax/Tribal replacements).


I can agree there.



> Maintain a standing task force in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: 1 DD type warship, plus 3 FFG's, and an AOR on standby each ocean (8 major warships, 2 AOR's)


So far I am with you.



> Deployments with American carrier groups: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)


Seeing how we use destroyers as flagships don't you think that would be a waste of command platform considering the USN likes the general purpose nature of the Halifax Class.



> Deployments and commitments to NATO and UN: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)


We only deploy destroyers _if_ we are going to assume a command role.



> Maritime patrol work: 4 frigates


Acceptable...I am assuming these would supplement your standing task group.



> Maintenance/Crew familiarization/training: 4 warships (2 DD type, 2 FFG type


I would put the number a little higher. Where are your ships that are back from deployment? Don't you think those ship's companies need some downtime. I know I do when I come back from a long deployment.

Your AORs numbers should be at least 4 because you will have at least 1 being down for refit every time.

Your numbers will be further decreased once again if the LPD(BHS) comes online as you will most likely see a destroyer and at least 2-3 frigates and an AOR deployed.


----------



## Armymatters

Dragoon, I acknowledge the fact that we would need more than 2 AOR's, but I was putting more of a emphasis on how many Tribals/Halifax replacements we need. And yes, the Martime patrol tasked frigates would be supplementing the standing task group. For the crew rest and rotation, we have two options: either hire more sailors, or purchase warships that are just as capable (if not so more capable) that have smaller crew requirements. In another thread, I pointed out that the Singaporeans have a variant of the French La-Fayette class frigates (Formidable class frigates) that on paper, have similar performance and capabilites as our Halifax class frigates, yet having a crew size of around 70, excluding the air-wing. They are about the same size as our Cold War destroyers that the Halifax frigates replaced, in terms of displacement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem with reduced crew sizes especoially for our navy is we do more and more boardings....what happens to a 70 man crew of a Formidable class when 20 members are deployed as Boarding Party? That cuts its a ships operations big time. We had a hard time losing 20 with the CPFs in the Gulf, I am also not counting things like part ship hands and storing ship. Yes reducing crew size is all well and dandy but it will play havoc with normal shipboard evolutions.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The problem with reduced crew sizes especoially for our navy is we do more and more boardings....what happens to a 70 man crew of a Formidable class when 20 members are deployed as Boarding Party? That cuts its a ships operations big time. We had a hard time losing 20 with the CPFs in the Gulf, I am also not counting things like part ship hands and storing ship. Yes reducing crew size is all well and dandy but it will play havoc with normal shipboard evolutions.



That is quite problematic from any standpoint. A innovate solution will be required of some sort, whenever to sail with a crew of 70, and on top of that, have space so that an additional 20 people can be onboard to form a boarding party (when they are not boarding other vessels, perhaps add them in for other tasks around the ship?), or recruit more sailors for warships of the same crew size as today.

Edit: chewing on this some more, The La-Fayette class frigates of which the Formidable class frigates are based off of usually sail with a complement of around 160. I am assuming that there is additional space on the Formidables for additional crew if needed. But since the Signaporeans are replacing a couple of missile boats with these frigates, they may have different roles in mind with their Formidable class frigates.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Armymatters said:
			
		

> That is quite problematic from any standpoint. A innovate solution will be required of some sort, whenever to sail with a crew of 70, and on top of that, have space so that an additional 20 people can be onboard to form a boarding party (when they are not boarding other vessels, perhaps add them in for other tasks around the ship?), or recruit more sailors for warships of the same crew size as today.



Then why not just have a larger crew so you could use them for other functions beside Boardings. That way you have the best of both worlds. Enough crew to man the ship witjout having to embark extra personnel to conduct boardings.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then why not just have a larger crew so you could use them for other functions beside Boardings. That way you have the best of both worlds. Enough crew to man the ship witjout having to embark extra personnel to conduct boardings.



That was in short what I was suggesting in the first part, but I wasn't as direct. That would work. Have a crew size of around 90 excluding the air wing when in reality, just to operate the ship at peak efficiency would require less crew, meaning that crew can be temporarily used as boarding party members as needed without sacrificing ship operations. Also, if all hell breaks loose on the warship, there are extra hands to handle the problem (e.g. fire, flood control, etc).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Its a trade off...always has been. We keep crew around to do more then damage control. Thats why we have so many billets for cooks, MSE,CSE and Combat dep types. This is why we use present members of the ships company for boarding ops, so they can do their regular occupations and be utilized as boarding party members should the need arise. Does not make sense to bring people that have no clue about ships, the class they are embarked on being all by isolated because they are only riders. Brining on temps is just dumb!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I kinda hate to say it, but Armymatters has raised a good point about how we go about crewing our ships.  IMHO, our ships are crewed today, for the most part, "because we have always done it that way".  I'm not sure that we can get away with that next time around- simple demographics are against us.  I agree totally that you need a certain minimum amount of crew just to do damage control (and having been a part of the 2 day, 2 chapter engine room fire on HMCS OTTAWA in 2004, I now know first-hand just how much of an all-ship evolution this is) and to fight the ship efficiently.  The are also daily maintenance , husbandry and logistical issues that require bodies.  I also know that, the more bodies you add to a ship, the more it becomes a "self-licking ice cream cone" ie- you have to devote more people like cooks, clerks, medics, and supply techs just to support yourself.

May I humbly submit for consideration that, in the next class of ship, we really work hard on getting the core crew requirements down, while still providing lots of extra bunks to give to you flexibility on how you employ the ship.  The ship should be automated and redundant up the hoop.  Everything should be designed with ease maintenance and cleaning kept in mind (lets try and get cleaning stations down to less than 2 hours/day!).  Maybe, the FMFs should be alot larger, so that maintenance alongside is done largely by them (yeah, I know, we have to fix the union issue first...) or a contractor.  Maybe boarding parties should become a specialty (like clearance diver) and only be embarked when needed, kind of like the Air Dept (heresy, I know).  Maybe our current naval trades are not structured correctly and need to be looked at in terms of who does what (this should be an ongoing process).  

Maybe when a ship sails to support a Ph IV MARS course or the FNO course, they only need a small "core crew"- the rest can be ashore on course or on leave.  If you are on a fishpat, you will get extra bodies, but not as many as when you sail to the Gulf.

This is isn't meant to suggest that any of the above are the answer.  Rather, I think we really need to start with a clean piece of paper when we design and crew the DDG/FFH repalcement class.

Cheers!


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to SKT and Armymatters:

Could "Marines" - original usage here in the sense of 17th and 18th century sea-solidiers - skilled in boarding operations and assaulting oil rigs etc, not also be taught damage control?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

If they can (and do) teach the air department damage control, why not?

You envision a naval infantry role in the CF?


----------



## Kirkhill

Honestly I don't know about the "naval infantry" role SKT.

For once in a long while I am going to admit I am well out of my lane.  I just don't know if such troops would need to be sailors that can handle weapons or soldiers that can handle boats.  I am pretty sure they don't need to be weapons techs, radar operators and members of the "black gang" (ps is that term still used?).

As in all other cases I am just curious as to options.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The reason why we generally take people out of their departments to be on the Boarding Parties is because they know ships. Things might be differently laid out but give any sailor a few minutes and he can figure out what does what. Making Boarding Parties a specialty while an interesting idea is not the way to approach this issue. Warships sometimes do not have the luxury to come back into port and pick up needed personnel should a mission come up or something changes. Having the personnel already onboard IMHO is the smart way to go. Part of a Boarding Party's responsibilities is to provide a prize crew should the need arise to sail a boarded ship into port.

SKT as someone that has gone through _Ottawa's_ fire I submit to you how would you have fared if her crew size was reduced to 100...even 70 as the Armymatters advocates  by him using as his example the Formidable class? My personal opinion is if you sail onboard you should know DC.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Part of a Boarding Party's responsibilities is to provide a prize crew should the need arise to sail a boarded ship into port.



Seen.


----------



## Armymatters

I am not suggesting that we create a naval infantry specialty in the CF for purely boarding. I am suggesting that since we can drive down crew basic requirements to operate a ship, why not have extra crew members that could be utilized in roles around the ship (perhaps an extra shift on the boat so that shift hours for sailors are shorter?) that is in excess of what it the ship acutally needs to basically function? These additional sailors that the ship would not otherwise need for a normal mission can be extra watchmen, mechanics, weapons technicians, etc.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We sail short as it is, trust me reducing crew complement won't help things on a destroyer/frigate sized ship. If anything you make things more dangerous for us. you talk of reducing numbers and then bringing extra numbers onboard for a _just in case_ situation? Again have the numbers onboard so you don't have to worry about being a plug and play sailor. Sailors do not like to be transfered from unit to unit, they get screwed over big time and I guarantee your solution would cause more of a manpower issue then you are trying to solve as most would end up putting in their releases.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> SKT as someone that has gone through Ottawa's fire I submit to you how would you have fared if her crew size was reduced to 100...even 70 as the Armymatters advocates  by him using as his example the Formidable class? My personal opinion is if you sail onboard you should know DC.



Ex-D,

You are preaching to the choir here.  We ran thru 5 attack teams and had 19 guys go down with heat exhaustion.  That was a one compartment, one zone fire, with no one shooting at us.

The point I was trying to make was, I don't think we have the luxury of starting from the premise that a FFH/DDH sized ship "needs" 235 bodies, because that is what we have always done.  I really think that we need to throw away the rule book and man the new ships very carefully and get the crew size down, if at all prudent.

Everyone who is going to travel by ship in the Canadian navy, including the army guys on the BHS, are going to have to have at least some exposure to damage control training, IMHO.

Cheers buddy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am not sure if there is an easy solution to this issue SKT... as an ATL on my ship I tried to imagine fighting a fire on a frigate sized ship (i.e. Formidable class) with 70 in the ships company vice a CPFs ships company of 225+ and honestly the thought scares me. Probably why I am so vehemently opposed of reducing crew sizes anymore then they have to.Especially with what duties a crew has to do and what additional ones are forced upon us as the situation dictates.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am not sure if there is an easy solution to this issue SKT... as an ATL on my ship I tried to imagine fighting a fire on a frigate sized ship (i.e. Formidable class) with 70 in the ships company vice a CPFs ships company of 225+ and honestly the thought scares me. Probably why I am so vehemently opposed of reducing crew sizes anymore then they have to.Especially with what duties a crew has to do and what additional ones are forced upon us as the situation dictates.



I am thinking that the Signaporeans have thought about this when they decided to procure their Formidable class frigates, with their reduced crew size. I have never had any experience with these ships as they are brand new, but perhaps the ships have some systems that allows a smaller crew to fight fires better, or something. I don't know, but I wish to find out. Too bad I don't have anyone to talk to in Singapore's defence forces to see how the Formidable frigates would handle a fire.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am thinking that the Signaporeans have thought about this when they decided to procure their Formidable class frigates, with their reduced crew size.* I have never had any experience * *with these ships as they are brand new*, but perhaps the ships have some systems that allows a smaller crew to fight fires better, or something. I don't know, but I wish to find out. Too bad I don't have anyone to talk to in Singapore's defence forces to see how the Formidable frigates would handle a fire.



So please tell me what ships do you have experience with.  Also, tell us what it is you consider to be "experience"  :


----------



## Armymatters

aesop081 said:
			
		

> So please tell me what ships do you have experience with.  Also, tell us what it is you consider to be "experience"  :



I actually haven't seen the ships up close, or have been onboard them, nor have I talked to the sailors onboard the ship to ask their opinion on the ship itself and the systems onboard. In short, I have had zero contact with the frigates to see the equipment onboard, and how the crew think about them. I am making the assumption that the Singaporeans have thought about this carefully, as these frigates are actually the first big combatant warship the Singaporeans have operated in a long time. Before these frigates came online, they operated missile boats that were all smaller than 1,000 tons displacement.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I actually haven't seen the ships up close, or have been onboard them, nor have I talked to the sailors onboard the ship to ask their opinion on the ship itself and the systems onboard. In short, I have had zero contact with the frigates to see the equipment onboard, and how the crew think about them. I am making the assumption that the Singaporeans have thought about this carefully, as these frigates are actually the first big combatant warship the Singaporeans have operated in a long time. Before these frigates came online, they operated missile boats that were all smaller than 1,000 tons displacement.



Short answer being "I have none" but i wasnt talking about just the Singapore ships.....i was asking about you experience with *ANY* warship.

Thanks  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Assumptions tend to get good people killed...and you know what they say about assume..... :


----------



## Cloud Cover

The fires go out when the spaces flood. Duh.


----------



## NavyShooter

Right now, one of the big personnel problems is not the manning level of the ship.

It's the fact that to get 100% crew on a ship when it's going to sail, you need to have between 130-150% of the regular personnel posted/attach posted to the ship.

When a HR ship sails for 6 months, look at the sick lame and lazy running to the MIR to get out of it.  We were briefed that for a HR ship to sail with a full complement, there's over 150% of the crew required.

That's crazy.

Didn't these people realize that they joined the NAVY????

Anyhow, yes, I think the point above that army folks on ships (ie BHS) will need to be trained in the basics of shipboard damage control and fire-fighting.  Anyone else remember Tom Clancy's book "Red Storm Rising"?  Where they invaded Iceland using a BHS?  The army "riders" on that ship were parts of the DC organization.  When the ship caught a harpoon, they managed to put the fire out and not lose the ship.  I'm not saying that we should use a fictional novel as a precedent for instituting a training program.  But, we should consider that the riders will need some basic seamanship stuff to learn how to get along with us....I mean, we have to explain the whole no-saluting zone thing to them, then there'd be navy terms....what's gash?  How about duff?  

Oh, and back to my 120mm AMOS, I ran across and artillery officer (forward observer/fire guy) and ran the idea past him, and he liked the sound of it.  

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thinking out loud...seeing how the Germans have successfully tested a 155mm howitzer to the deck of one of their _Brandenburgs_ how hard would it be for us to do similiar experiment using surplus Leopard C2 turrets? Basically we would end up with a gun similiar to the Brit Vickers 4.5".Thoughts?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is the range of the weapon within the requirements for NGS, or are you thinking of a barrel change as well?


----------



## Kirkhill

Or perhaps you were thinking of an M109 turret?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or perhaps you were thinking of an M109 turret?



Nope...was thinking LeoC2 turret but GW says the range is approx 3000m so that would be of no use as an NGS platform.

Was looking at a battleship website...some interesting ideas. Unlikely to see the light of day but an interesting approach:

http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htm


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

How about creating a 2-part turret (much like the LAV 25mm with TOW turret) where-in you would use the Pzh2000 155mm turret with a 4-canister MLRS mounted on the shoulder (or two 2-canisters MLRS on each shoulder if that would improve balance)?  That way you could provide a much greater depth of coverage.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Matt the problem with that is it would have a wicked radar cross section which could be a real bad thing.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I hadn't even thought of that....Thanks Ex.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

No problem.


----------



## commando gunner

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thinking out loud...seeing how the Germans have successfully tested a 155mm howitzer to the deck of one of their _Brandenburgs_ how hard would it be for us to do similiar experiment using surplus Leopard C2 turrets? Basically we would end up with a gun similiar to the Brit Vickers 4.5".Thoughts?



You cannot compare a direct fire tank gun with a howitzer, well not for NGS anyway.  Period. 

And, yes I have directed the 4.5 many times so have an inkling of what I speak.


----------



## Cloud Cover

commando gunner said:
			
		

> And, yes I have directed the 4.5 many times so have an inkling of what I speak.



Ah yes, the infamous Vickers 4.5 - drunken, wobbly to junior to the 5"54 and lover of the busted shear pin!! Those were the days.   :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

commando gunner said:
			
		

> You cannot compare a direct fire tank gun with a howitzer, well not for NGS anyway.  Period.
> 
> And, yes I have directed the 4.5 many times so have an inkling of what I speak.



And had you read my reply #226 you would have also seen I dismissed my idea as well...take a pill.

So CG what would be our best route to go for NGS?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Revisting an old topic, I wonder how an MLRS pod would do using an MCDV sweep deck as its platform. Would this be an adequate platform for NGS?


----------



## NavyShooter

I'd be concerned for the stability of the platform...

I don't think the MCDV's would be able to handle the excess weight and be stable enough.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

LOL I figured you would be the first to respond.....I wonder if we could charter a sea lift vessel and do the same?


----------



## NavyShooter

Like the Brit Harrier carriers a la Falklands?

Interesting idea, but putting a chartered ship within range of return fire from shore?  Some unhappy civies on there for sure.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

True or in the event we need to gey NGS in a hurry there are a lot of ships for sale out there...as long our guys could figure out how to sail, put rudimentary DC gear on and let them practice with a few rounds we might be able to do it.

Ack I just became an Amry.Ca fixture....


----------



## NavyShooter

My AMOS suggestion was submitted to the MARE Journal by my CSE last month...wonder if they'll print it....

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

They should...it was a good piece of work IMO


----------



## NavyShooter

Thanks,

Did a couple of minor changes to it, and when talking with a couple folks who read it (w/o checking to look at the attached pics of the system) one said he didn't like it because the exposed mortar system wouldn't survive well in a Naval environment....to which I pulled a copy of the brochure showing the twin-barrel turretted system out from the back for him to look at.  

The only other comment was that the idea of bringing a $800Million dollar ship that close inshore to provide fire support was...undesireable.  With a max range of 15 km, and keeping 5 km offshore for seakeeping, that's still 10km  inland you can hit...or even keeping 10K offshore to maintain some extra response time in case of incoming, you can still reach inland 5KM, that's enough to at least provide *some* help to army guys going ashore, right?

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

What about a specialized NGS ship. Say corvette size with AMOS and MLRS? 2 per coast which would allow for refits.


----------



## NavyShooter

Trying to get another class of ship through the system?  I honestly don't think that'd work so well.

Now, that said, how about grabbing the old steamers hiding on the other side of the harbour, putting a couple AMOS turrets on them (fore/aft, replace the 3" forward, and the ASROC aft) add an MLRS in the mortar wells, get a skeleton crew, and off you go?

Ideal platform.  Completely expendable!

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Trying to get another class of ship through the system?  I honestly don't think that'd work so well.
> 
> Now, that said, how about grabbing the old steamers hiding on the other side of the harbour, putting a couple AMOS turrets on them (fore/aft, replace the 3" forward, and the ASROC aft) add an MLRS in the mortar wells, get a skeleton crew, and off you go?
> 
> Ideal platform.  Completely expendable!
> 
> NS



Good plan...might be interesting to see if they could get them moving under their own power again....


----------



## NavyShooter

Boilers are probably hooped after so long.  Gottago's would be in the best shape...we rebuilt one of them prior to the end (crew-done mini-refit of the boiler)

They used to send guys down from FMFCS to flash/turnover gear every now and then (monthly or so) just to keep things in semi-operable state, but I think that ended a while ago.

NS


----------

