Author Topic: Little Honking Ships......  (Read 117907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Little Honking Ships......
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:07:49 »
To refresh the interminable "wouldn't it be nice" discussion....

My latest prescription:

Build 16 CSCs - 4 of the AAW variety, 8 of the GP variety (both embarking CH-148s but with CH-147 capable decks)  and 4 stretched versions with flat decks like these ones.




Link

San Giorgio design built for the Algerian Navy.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2014, 20:19:57 »
Range would be insufficient, wouldn't it?

Matthew.
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,639
  • Freespeecher
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2014, 20:23:06 »
But can it embark 500 fully equipped troops, house a command suite for the Admiral and a second one for the Task Force Commander + staff AND be built in modular sections in ridings controlled by the government of the day to be assembled in Resolute Bay to support the "Economic Action Plan and the "Canada First" Defence Strategy?  ::)

Otherwise, it is actually a pretty cool ship. If it were up to me I'd upsize to the Japanese "Helicopter carriers".
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2014, 21:12:13 »
440 troops and 400 mio Euros Thuc.

 And yes, a little short on legs Matt but 30% more than the Iroquois and  we're supposed to be defending Canada First and the Carribean Second in any event.  N'est ce pas?

We have two big tankers to get little ships over long distances.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 148,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,868
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2014, 21:19:35 »
Seems familiar.  The San Giorgio class that it's based upon comes in at just under 8,000 tons displacement.  The Scheldt Enforcer has a small variant coming in at the same displacement.  Definitely seems more feasible/palatable than manning ships at 15,000+ tons.  Put 2-3 together and you can sail a BG anywhere.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2014, 23:12:09 »
The money just will not be there, esp. with build in Canada:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?topic=26594.msg1284386#msg1284386

How about a mix of OPVs/Black Swans and just a few serious frigate-types?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-concept-note-1-12-future-black-swan-class-sloop-of-war-a-group-system
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

If the RCN is mainly to do drug-busting and anti-piracy?  And not much there there left for latter:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2014/01/20140119-130156.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/10582360/Somali-pirates-hijack-first-ship-since-2012.html

What is the threat against which we need 15 high-end surface ships?   One-for-one Cold  War vs Soviets replacement  (with specific NATO responsibilities then);  but  that Cold War is over. 

Moreover the RN is only going to have 19:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131230/DEFREG01/312300007/Final-Type-45-Destroyer-Enters-UK-Royal-Navy-Service

Or do we envisage combat with China with a lot of the 15 new CSCs?  Is that the rationale?

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2014, 09:32:55 »
To refresh the interminable "wouldn't it be nice" discussion....

My latest prescription:

Build 16 CSCs - 4 of the AAW variety, 8 of the GP variety (both embarking CH-148s but with CH-147 capable decks)  and 4 stretched versions with flat decks like these ones.




Link

San Giorgio design built for the Algerian Navy.

I'd vote for this. It would give us enough utility for the missions we have been called upon in the last number of years. IMO OPVs belong with an "armed" CCG. FELEX, CSC and Kirkhills CSC variants would be a nice mission enhancer for Canada and our coalition partners.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 52,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 596
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2014, 10:46:09 »
This is a WAY out of my lane question.  If we can't afford our own BHS...or a LHS....or even a JSS vs an AOR, then could we get creative?

Could we subsidise the purchase of a pair of commercial Ro-PAX ships for East & West Coast ferry fleets?  The government could maybe provide interest free loans (with generous repayment schedules) for the companies to purchase these ships and the CF would pay for the cost to add a couple of modifications to make them more useful for military use (such as a helicopter pad, refueling at sea capability, upgraded power, etc).  The ferry companies would be free to use these ships but the CF would be able to "activate" them when required to respond to military needs.  Additional mission capabilities could be added when required with containerized systems.  There could also possibly be some kind of manning agreement where a few NAVRES billets could be on each ship so that we have crews familiar with the vessels. 

Here's an example of an existing vessel that has both military and commercial versions:  http://www.incat.com.au/domino/incat/incatweb.nsf/0/76457AADD2C1A987CA2571AF0019EC66?OpenDocument

It's maybe not as effective as having a dedicated BHS, but we would have available a couple of vessels in time of need to be able to transport troops, vehicles and containers when required as well as have a platform that can carry a couple of helicopters for ship-to-shore movement, etc.

Just a thought.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2014, 10:50:35 »
Ah! Kirkhill, where to start to dash your hopes again?

Lets put it this way: I love dreamer but:

1) these small phibs are not repeat not "combatants" in the sense of the CSC. They could not fight their way out of a paper bag if their life depended on it.

2) You cannot just "stretch" a CSC and put a "flat deck" on them so they would remain the same ships. They would be, by necessity entirely different: different internal arrangement of machinery, different internal compartments arrangements, different distribution of equipment and on-board services, different ballasting and tanking arrangements, and likely  even a different hull form would be required, etc, etc. So, if you want small phibs (and I would personally like to see phibs in our Navy) it is a lot faster and smarter to start either from scratch or from a foreign design we buy than try to start from a CSC.

3) The San Giorgio's are not bigger than the envisaged CSC's - in fact they are about the same size but shorter.

4) The San Giorgio's have a limited lift capability: They can only carry about 400 armed personal for landing and about 30-34 large army vehicles. They do not repeat not have the capacity to embark either the task force commander or the Admiral and their staff. No on board medical facility to talk of either.

5) The San Giorgio's have a very limited capacity for helicopters: there is no Hangar to store them in (they stay on deck, with the afferent corrosion problems from exposure to salty sea air) and especially when the LCVP's davits are in the upper position, limited spots and embark capacity of maybe four or five medium helicopters at most.

5) The CSC are extremely unlikely to be able to ever land the CH-147 Chinooks: The CSC's and their flight decks are small and the Chinooks don't have a haul down system, making the sea states in which you could safely land them on a CSC quite limited.

As I have said, I would love for the Navy to have phibs, but my choice would be to acquire something more suited to our needs, with about the same size crew, but that would provide good helicopter capacity, better troop transportation and heavy equipment capacity, actual room for command staffs and good medical facilities. For about the same price as the San Giorgio's, these would be Mistral class ships, or if we wished to go a little bigger and a bit pricier, the Canberra class.

Offline GreenMarine

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2014, 11:37:05 »
 :goodpost:

Took the words out of my mouth.
Metalllic25th

"conciliatrix actuarius commilitium"

("She who unites fast sailing vessels for companionship in war.")

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2014, 17:30:45 »
Ah! Kirkhill, where to start to dash your hopes again?



I live to entertain you OGBD.   ;D

But.....

My old man lived by the dictum "Anything's possible if cash".

If we had cash we would have bought Big Honking Ships a decade ago.  If we had cash we would have bought a US style navy.  Since neither of those conditions pertain I can only assume that we are short of the ready...

Another favourite phrase around our place was "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools".

While I appreciate the value of an electric 3-Axis mitre saw I can also see how a job might be done with a tenon saw and a mitre box.

Just because I can't afford the 3-Axis mitre saw should I disregard what can be done with the tenon saw?

San Giorgio is not San Antonio... but we can't afford San Antonio.  Should we disregard what we might be able to accomplish with the San Giorgio?

I will be pleased to hear how you propose to fund high end capabilities.


Your Servant, Good Sir,  >:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2014, 17:46:48 »
PS

San Giorgio has no hangar.  Agreed.

But.

San Giorgio can move CH-146 Griffons from the Vehicle deck to the Flight deck via an elevator.

Better than nought.

But.

The picture is not of the San Giorgio but of the San Giorgio variant Kalaat Beni Abbes of the Algerian Navy which:

Quote
The BDSL, with a displacement of 8 800 tons, can accommodate 150 crew and 440 soldiers and their equipment as well as landing craft – three landing craft can simultaneously operate from the stern well. Vehicle and personnel landing craft will be carried, along with a couple of RHIBs. Three Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) are being manufactured in Algeria under license by the Mers El Kebir shipyard.

The vessel can accommodate 15 main battle tanks or 30 light tanks or armoured personnel carriers. A hospital with operating rooms can house fifty beds. Five medium helicopter can be carried in a hangar.

Link

With the exception of the Admiral's staff it seems to tick the boxes you left open .... as regards the Admiral's staff, perhaps if we left a platoon, or even a company ashore, perhaps they could be accomodated.  Nelson's staff only required seven berths.

Your Servant.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2014, 17:51:32 »
And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.



Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2014, 20:14:38 »
And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.



Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.

This isn't really my lane but I think trying to turn CSC hull/machinery into a usable LHD is kind of like trying to put a pick-up truck frame onto a Lotus Elise chassis.

You 'could' do it, but your constraints would dramatically undermine the LHD performance.


Matthew.
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2014, 20:22:09 »
One caveat:  If you were willing to limit the size of your alt vessel to the Absalon-class, the Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon programs probably merit some review.


Matthew.
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2014, 20:25:42 »
That San Giorgio looks rather tiny for a LPD. Or am I reading the dimensions wrong?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2014, 20:31:20 »
What does CSC stand for?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2014, 20:51:32 »
ArmyRick:

CSC = Canadian Surface Combatant.  It's the Navy's programme to replace both the DDHs "Destroyers" and the Halifax Frigates with a single class of ship - hopefully resulting in 15 or 16 new ships.

And you are right.  These ships are a lot smaller than US and even British LPH/LPDs.  They are more the size of the old LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks) and have found employment in coastal navies.  Thailand also comes to mind.

I think these things would have utility in Canada and as "motherships" for disaster relief and constabulary duties internationally.  They would also thicken out an ASW screen with their "5 medium helicopters in a hangar".  Unless the text is wrong that would mean 5 CH-148 Cyclone or CH-149 sized helos.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 148,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,868
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2014, 20:52:14 »
And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.



Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.

That is the image of the Scheldt variants I spoke to earlier.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2014, 21:01:09 »
If we had the cash then the Enforcer (3 of them in the flat top variant) would be my preference too.

But if they're too rich for our budget perhaps something like the modernized San Giorgio would be affordable - especially if built to a common standard with the CSCs.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,639
  • Freespeecher
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2014, 21:23:17 »
While I fully agree that larger, more capable ships like the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer are far more expensive and difficult to procure and man, I am a bit concerned about how much smaller ships would be able to handle and operate in the North Atlantic, or for that matter, operate globally like our current fleet does. Back in the Cold War, Soviet ships were not as capable as their Western counterparts because of their small size and limited habitability.

While there was a bit of sarcasm about the Admiral's suite in my post, since *we* do tend to go out on multinational missions, there is going to be the need for more staff and equipment for inteoperability, at a minimum. And of course if the reason for having these ships in the first place is to be able to embark a battalion's worth of troops, then there will be a need for an HQ on board, evenif it is a bunch of containers bolted to the deck. And of course, a full service flight deck and hangers for the air component is a must if you are using aircraft at sea.

Sometimes, size really does matter.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2014, 22:21:45 »
PS

San Giorgio has no hangar.  Agreed.

But.

San Giorgio can move CH-146 Griffons from the Vehicle deck to the Flight deck via an elevator.


Actually, no. There are no elevators on the San Giorgio's save for a small supply one. There is a ramp system so the upper deck can be used to store more army trucks and jeeps, etc. and move them down to the well deck, but it cannot accommodate helicopters unfortunately.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against these small ships, but they are not a good capability fit for Canada. In Italy these San Giorgio's are not meant to operate alone: their doctrine calls for them to be a unit in a group headed by either the Carrier Cavour or the small carrier Garibaldi.

In Canada, we would need to meld some of these functions. If pure "command" capability is sought, then Absalon style ships  (on a CSC style hull/power plant) could do the job. If some form of landing capability combined with land operations is sought, Mistral's would be better (BTW, the Mistrals, based on a civilian ship type, are cheap vessels for the punch they give you and not more expansive than the San Giorgio's, which are military specs vessels).

The Enforcer family is exactly that: a family of ships. Their commonality stops at the hull and power plant level BUT they are all for the same function: landing ships. The CSC are fighting ships and are a family too: but of combatants (either optimized for AAW, ASW or GP, as needs be). Their hull is not optimized for lower speeds / wider stance required for landing ships that CANNOT be built to a common standard with CSC's.

Also, I was making reference to land staff more than admiral staff in my comments on lack of capability to accommodate: I have no doubt that pure "naval" direction of a naval task force by an admiral and his staff can be accommodated from any type of ship. After all, even today I suspect that push come to shove, an admiral and ten staffers can do the job.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 195,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2014, 11:26:20 »
OGBD:

I stand corrected on the San Giorgio but the Kalaat Beni Abbes appears to have been outfitted with a centre deck elevator. Based on the text and the images I believe those to be NH90s.



I accept the distinction between civil and naval construction - and I would be happy to see either the Mistral or Enforcers in Canadian service.  My sense though, is that the RCN is not comfortable with civilian construction standards. 

I have been given to understand that while the AOPS was originally projected as an armed civilian vessel, and price estimates established on that basis,  the east coast has seen fit to ask at least some suppliers to provide milspec mechanical equipment.

Also, wasn't one of the differences between the Krupp and the BMT bids on the JSS the design standard, with the Krupp design being the naval standard version?

Finally, accepting your strictures on hull design, doesn't that still leave open the possibility of ensuring a common machinery and electrical package with a common bridge and engine room control architecture?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2014, 12:37:42 »
I find these topics very interesting, in that it seems that there is broad agreement amongst a wide array of individuals/SMEs that an amphiobious lift capability is of significant value to the Canadian government.  This conclusion also seems to have been reached by almost all significant naval forces in the world who
have a blue water fleet. The list of nations that now have dedicated amphbious/helicopter carrier/C2 ships is long and growing and includes a large
number of nations and navies comparable to Canada and the RCN.

I am not sure that cost is actually the real reason we have seen no real effort to incorperate an amphbious capablility (Of any sort whether Canberra
class, Mistral Class, Karl Doorman Class, San Giorgio) into the RCN.

It appears to me, as an interested observer, that the RCN as an institution is still focused on its WW1,WW2 and Cold War mission of providing escorts
to North Atlantic Convoy's and conducting ASW missions, at least insofar as the RCNs force structure is concerned.

As was pointed out previously in this thread the Royal Navy is planning on having 19 surface combatants and Canada is planning on 15. There is nothing
wrong with having 15 CSC's in and of itself, if they were part of what I would term a balanced fleet similar to what the majority of other blue water
fleets are creating. The problem as I see it is that the RCN is on track as an institution to be set up with a fleet no differant in terms of real
capability than what they have had since WW2. This will hold especially true if the CSC's end up with no capability for NGS and land attack.
I am not sure why the RCN seems to have not considered reducing the number of CSC's in order to build a fleet with a broader range of capabilities.
It seems that the RCN wants nothing to do with a balanced multi role fleet.

I do not think that that currently scheduled fleet composition is as useful in advancing Canada's national interests as a more balanced fleet with an
amphbious/helicopter carrier/C2 capability would be. However I do not see the RCN advocating or striving to achieve such a fleet nor do I see the
government actually forcing the RCN to adopt such a fleet structure.
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,581
Re: Little Honking Ships......
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2014, 13:20:46 »
I find these topics very interesting, in that it seems that there is broad agreement amongst a wide array of individuals/SMEs that an amphiobious lift capability is of significant value to the Canadian government.  This conclusion also seems to have been reached by almost all significant naval forces in the world who
have a blue water fleet. The list of nations that now have dedicated amphbious/helicopter carrier/C2 ships is long and growing and includes a large
number of nations and navies comparable to Canada and the RCN.

I am not sure that cost is actually the real reason we have seen no real effort to incorperate an amphbious capablility (Of any sort whether Canberra
class, Mistral Class, Karl Doorman Class, San Giorgio) into the RCN.

It appears to me, as an interested observer, that the RCN as an institution is still focused on its WW1,WW2 and Cold War mission of providing escorts
to North Atlantic Convoy's and conducting ASW missions, at least insofar as the RCNs force structure is concerned.

As was pointed out previously in this thread the Royal Navy is planning on having 19 surface combatants and Canada is planning on 15. There is nothing
wrong with having 15 CSC's in and of itself, if they were part of what I would term a balanced fleet similar to what the majority of other blue water
fleets are creating. The problem as I see it is that the RCN is on track as an institution to be set up with a fleet no differant in terms of real
capability than what they have had since WW2. This will hold especially true if the CSC's end up with no capability for NGS and land attack.
I am not sure why the RCN seems to have not considered reducing the number of CSC's in order to build a fleet with a broader range of capabilities.
It seems that the RCN wants nothing to do with a balanced multi role fleet.

I do not think that that currently scheduled fleet composition is as useful in advancing Canada's national interests as a more balanced fleet with an
amphbious/helicopter carrier/C2 capability would be. However I do not see the RCN advocating or striving to achieve such a fleet nor do I see the
government actually forcing the RCN to adopt such a fleet structure.

I understand that CSC will have a 5 inch gun. Land attack missiles are being considered as well.