Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 357042 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #550 on: October 02, 2017, 22:33:54 »
Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [:D

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.

yep looks like a 127 mm to me,nice.

and to be honest(i'm dutch,so biast)but have to say i like her a lot.  ;D

but now it will come down to what the others have to offer and offcourse the price.(Type-26 is an ASW frigate first) and tbh not cheap.

Then hopefully for you lot,i mean Canada,a decision can be made shortly so you can start building asap.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 22:40:20 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #551 on: October 02, 2017, 23:20:48 »
Just a quick thank you to JollyJacktar and OGB.

One of the reasons this site is so great.

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

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,214
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #552 on: October 03, 2017, 09:57:38 »
That's a good looking ship.  I hope the other contenders are as impressive.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,210
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #553 on: October 03, 2017, 11:29:24 »
Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Quote
Australia to fit warships with anti-missile defense systems

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Tuesday nine war ships set for construction in 2020 will be fitted with long-range ­anti-missile defense systems to counter the threat of rogue nations.

Australia’s proposed frigates will use Aegis combat systems, produced by Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with SAAB Australia technology, Turnbull said.

Tensions in the region have spiked considerably in recent months as North Korea conducted a series of tests of its medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, some of which flew over Japan, as well as its sixth nuclear test on Sept. 3...

“Recent events in our region have proven that Australia’s future frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium- and long-range missile attacks,” Turnbull said in a speech in Sydney.

Work on the frigates is set to begin in 2020, with BAE Systems, Navantia and Fincantieri all competing for the A$35 billion ($27.39 billion) contract.

Turnbull said the decision to award the missile defense system contract allows the three bidders enough time to incorporate Aegis technology into their bids.

Australia is expected to announce the winner of the frigate contract in early 2018 [emphasis added]...

The decision to use the Aegis ballistic missile defense systems brings Australia in line with U.S., Japanese and Korean vessels, allowing international cooperation [emphasis added], Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Australia’s navy chief, told reporters in Sydney...

The frigates will be the next major component of Australia’s plan to increase defense spending by A$30 billion to be worth A$195 billion, or 2 percent of GDP [emphasis added], by 2021-2022 as Canberra seeks to protect its strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-defence/australia-to-fit-warships-with-anti-missile-defense-systems-idUSKCN1C72YM

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

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #554 on: October 03, 2017, 11:41:57 »
Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Mark
Ottawa

Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable. ;)

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 11:45:21 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 447
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #555 on: October 03, 2017, 12:11:49 »
Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable. ;)

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.
If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #556 on: October 03, 2017, 12:37:41 »
If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.

Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 12:42:31 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 447
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #557 on: October 03, 2017, 12:47:46 »
Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)
I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #558 on: October 03, 2017, 13:48:39 »
I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.

Yep,Alexander you've got me,in the number of cells,i was too quick in answering,my bad.  :P

For the rest i totally agree.
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #559 on: October 03, 2017, 13:49:46 »
Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 447
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #560 on: October 03, 2017, 14:31:11 »
It is my understanding that The Joint Strike Missile is being developed for use with the F-35, so if we purchase the aircraft and the missile proves to be a good system then at some point we may have to choose between the JSM and the Harpoon, which have very similar numbers in terms of range. If we did choose the JSM they would fire out of the vls cells and we wouldn't need the launchers on the decks, so would provide more options for the deck space.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 14:48:29 by AlexanderM »

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #561 on: October 03, 2017, 15:13:25 »
Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?    :salute:

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

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,210
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #562 on: October 03, 2017, 15:52:49 »
Fincantieri is offering their FREMM for CSC:

Quote

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/italian-shipbuilders-pledge-to-use-allaustralian-labour-on-frigates/news-story/d0a6af4e61bad8a36ec984dc73a01db7

Meanwhile they're building a sort of super-OPV for Italian Navy:

Quote
Fincantieri Building Second Italian Navy Patrol Ship
https://www.marinelink.com/news/fincantieri-building429945#.WdPY9o9OHs4.twitter

From 2015:

Quote

Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?), Part 2


https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn-part-2/

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

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 863
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #563 on: October 03, 2017, 17:12:40 »
Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

Agreed, I saw that as well.  Seems like a simple enough EC.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.

From what I have been able to gather is that 48 cells is more than the requirement (recent article about De Zeven Provincien having more VLS capability at 40VLS than the requirement in CDR magazine).  I believe (with no direct evidence) that the requirement is for 32 cells similar to what the 280's had with the AAD version being exclusively kitted out with SM family missiles and the GP version being kitted out with mainly ESSM, though a mix makes sense.  Only issue with that would be the radar system for the AAD is going to be more powerful and more optimized for longer SM engagement ranges. 

Quote from: Canadian Blackshirt
Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?
The funny thing is no one who actually knows the specific requirements is talking about it due to a publication ban or security clearance.  So the best we can do is infer and discuss based upon images like the one posted and the odd company statement or town hall bit of info.

The VLS canisters are supposed to be large enough for the SM family of missiles and it was stated in a recent town hall that "significant land attack capability" is a requirement.  I would interpret that this means strike length VLS to accommodate land attack missiles whatever they may be, as the strike length VLS can be shortened with inserts should you need AFAIK.

It would also be a bit future proof for the VLS to be strike length as the in-development Long Range Anti Ship Missile is well underway. 

Added thought/edit: We are assuming that the radar is an APAR type, which means the missile family would be a semi-active group.  It could be something like the Sea Fire 500.  This radar works with active homing missiles like the Aster family.  So the loadout would be more like 32 Aster 15's for a GP frigate and 32 Aster 30's for an AAD frigate.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 17:33:51 by Underway »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #564 on: October 04, 2017, 10:39:14 »
Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 447
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #565 on: October 04, 2017, 10:42:45 »
Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?
Pretty sure it's better to have the cells, they really don't take up that much deck space and the big plus is rate of fire, as all missiles are available to fire at any time, no need to reload.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,365
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #566 on: October 04, 2017, 10:59:52 »
On the other hand:

Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.

With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #567 on: October 04, 2017, 12:14:55 »
On the other hand:

Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.

With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.

I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #568 on: October 04, 2017, 12:21:20 »
Hmm or a combo of the two types. The big issue I guess is ensuring no gases or flames get out of the launcher into the magazine space and also ensuring the magazine space is protected in case of fire or penetration damage. I wonder from a damage control perceptive if the individual cells are safer than a magazine style system?

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 447
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #569 on: October 04, 2017, 14:35:41 »
I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?
That's why the Burke's have 90 to 96 cells each, so they can load up with missiles in case they get in a fight and can't reload for a while. It would take quite an effort to run them out of missiles. They could potentially carry up to 360 ESSM's. It's our mindset that is the problem with our 32 cells, thinking we're just there to have a presence and if anyone starts shooting call the Americans. If you look at the Spanish frigates they have 48 cells, that's 32 SM-2's plus 64 ESSM's, for a total of 96 missiles, to me that's the minimum. You don't need to worry about reloading in port if you've got 96 missiles ready to say hello.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 15:04:32 by AlexanderM »

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #570 on: October 04, 2017, 15:50:02 »
Even if it starts as "fitted for but not with", limiting the design to 32 cells certainly appears to limit the design going into an unknown future. 
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,365
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #571 on: October 04, 2017, 16:04:20 »
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-26-missile-launcher.htm

Here's the launcher that preceded the Mk 41 VLS - the Mk 26.

I am going to guess that one of the major advantages of the vertical launch system was simplicity.  Fewer moving parts to fail.





Loading and Firing sequence video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRvHV6_1eQ
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 863
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #572 on: October 04, 2017, 16:07:32 »
See Falklands war where one of these jammed at the exact wrong time.  There is also the limitation that you can't fire all your missiles in quick succession as overwhelming the ships defences is an important tactic.  Those would be overwhelmed relatively quickly.

Online NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 180,321
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #573 on: October 07, 2017, 21:46:24 »
Look at the moving bits in this video.

That's a LOT of stuff to keep working in order to launch missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTz5kL6gzSI

VLS please!
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,210
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #574 on: October 13, 2017, 11:50:07 »
Relevant to possible missile defence role for CSCs:

Quote
Could SM-3 Interceptor Take On Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?
As Pentagon adds dollars for missile defense, Raytheon pitches SM-3s as ICBM killers
http://aviationweek.com/defense/could-sm-3-interceptor-take-intercontinental-ballistic-missiles

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.