Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 607308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,655
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1800 on: August 16, 2020, 16:43:26 »

Similarly the RCN could end up with 6-9 x T26 and 9-6 x T31 or equivalent, but at least no less than six units of the T26. However with BAE and LM out of the T31, there may be strong reaction to change or move away from the original plans of 15x T26 units.



9 and 9 would be a nice outcome.
... Move!! ...

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 92
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1801 on: August 26, 2020, 12:39:43 »
In the summer-2020 number of MEJ there is an introducing article to CSC. From now on MEJ (maritime eng. journal) is available at
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/maritime-engineering-journal.html

Wish you enjoy it.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,173
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1802 on: August 27, 2020, 11:44:18 »
In the summer-2020 number of MEJ there is an introducing article to CSC. From now on MEJ (maritime eng. journal) is available at
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/maritime-engineering-journal.html

Wish you enjoy it.

This is my favourite part of course:

Quote
CSC Combat System: The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles. When it is complete, the overall configuration will produce one of the most capable combat systems in the world. We will examine the technical and programmatic challenges of integrating a wide range of complex systems obtained from Canadian and international defence suppliers, including significant procurements through US GovernmentForeign Military Sales.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 200,906
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,402
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1803 on: August 27, 2020, 12:09:08 »
9 and 9 would be a nice outcome.



In terms of platforms, that would be...actually somewhat unfortunate.


You'd be increasing the load on the training system by having multiple platforms, plus increasing the load on the maintenance facilities.


Going with a single platform means greater redundancy of parts, confluence of training, and the supply chain will be....happier....for it.

With the Halifax Class, there were a considerable number of systems that there were, quite literally, only 13 of ever built.  1 for each ship, and one for the school.  As they broke, the one at the school got taken away, then they robbed from other ships, then they only supporting the single (or two) HR deployers, then they only supported based on the intended OP Area...


I believe we would be far better served as a small navy with a single class of ships.


My fear/concern is that the Government is going to look at the ~$60B price-tag, and cancel the whole shebang, and tell the Navy that instead, they're going to get a dozen extra AOPS after the 2 CCG ones are built...and the Navy can transfer whatever C3I capability to them that they can, and up-gun them from 25mm to deck mounted (non-deck penetrating configuration) 57mm, with 1x CEROS + 4x VLS cells plus a spot to plunk the CIWS....and a redesign of the mast to include the SMART-S.  Max budget of an extra $100mil per AOPS. 


They'd save billions doing that, and the general public for the most part doesn't know any different between one gray ship and another....so long as it's got a flag and a gun, they're happy.



NS

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1804 on: August 28, 2020, 09:20:07 »
I guess if they made it a Flight II AOPS, with a 100+ ft increase in length (for a VLS, mission Bay, etc) and an MT30 (along with added length makes a few more knots) it wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. But, still no world standard radar, no stealth to speak of (she's pretty high and slab sided) and some survivability questions (no CBRN citadel etc) would make this a real loss in capability for the RCN. Now, if you wanted to build 8 of those in addition to, say, 12 CSC as a step up/replacement for the MCDV, I could see a case being made.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,183
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1805 on: August 28, 2020, 14:20:12 »
Leak in UK Daily Telegraph that RN as result of defence review might end up with just three Type 26s and five cheaper, less capable Type 31s--what would happen to ASW in North Atlantic, esp Scotland to Iceland?

Quote
Exclusive: anti-submarine warships could be cut down to single figures
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/26/exclusive-anti-submarine-warships-could-cut-single-figures/

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

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1806 on: August 28, 2020, 15:13:49 »
Leak in UK Daily Telegraph that RN as result of defence review might end up with just three Type 26s and five cheaper, less capable Type 31s--what would happen to ASW in North Atlantic, esp Scotland to Iceland?
Quote
Type-26 Royal Navy frigates being slashed from 'eight to three' is 'fake news', claims source

Devonport MP says cutting number of new warships from eight to three is a 'genuine risk' to national security 'when Russia is on the rise and China has territorial ambitions'

Plymouth Sutton and Devonport MP Luke Pollard has reacted with horror to reports that the number of Royal Navy Type-26 frigates being ordered is being slashed from eight to three.

The Telegraph reports that the Government is considering not ordering any further Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates after the initial batch of three ships has been delivered.

However, a Ministry of Defence source told PlymouthLive the report was 'fake news'.

Plymouth fought a long campaign to base these ships in Devonport as they represent a like-for-like replacement for the Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates that are currently based in Devonport.

Labour MP Luke Pollard, who is Vice-Chairman of the All Party Armed Forces Group, said: “Devonport was promised eight Type 26 Anti-submarine frigates to replace the current Type 23 frigates. Work is underway to prepare for the arrival of these world-class frigates that will secure Devonport’s future as a base for the Royal Navy’s surface fleet.

"If reports in the media today are correct then it looks like the Conservatives are intending to slash the orders from eight to just three Type 26 frigates. The Tories cut the order from 13 frigates to just eight when they came to power so we must not rule out that they won’t do it again.

“A further cut to just three Type 26 frigates will pose a genuine risk to our national security at a time when Russia is on the rise and China has territorial ambitions that threaten our allies.

"As I have warned for years the Type 31 light frigates, more akin to a corvette, do not have the war fighting capabilities or survivability of the new Type 26 frigates and certainly are not equipped to take on submarines in the Atlantic which is what the Type 26 are designed for.

“As Devonport’s MP I fought against the decision by Conservative Ministers to sell HMS Ocean and led the campaign to protect Devonport’s two amphibious assault ships from Tory cuts.

"As a city we now need to prepare for a full-scale fight against new Government plans to slash frigate numbers and to defend our amphibious capabilities based in Devonport.

“Today’s article is a wake-up call for those who care about the Royal Navy and Devonport that Ministers must not be allowed to slash our ship numbers even further than they have already.”

However an MoD source says the revelation is "completely fake news".

"I'd love to see evidence for these claims," they said.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/type-26-royal-navy-frigates-4463985

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1807 on: August 31, 2020, 08:37:45 »
Anyone have a sense of when the next decision milestone on the CSC's is? What, realistically, will be achieved in pushing the peanut uphill on the CSC's before year-end?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,173
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1808 on: September 02, 2020, 15:38:04 »
Anyone have a sense of when the next decision milestone on the CSC's is? What, realistically, will be achieved in pushing the peanut uphill on the CSC's before year-end?

Preliminary Design Review is next but you won't hear about it in the media likely.  But if that is passed then money is awarded.  It also frees up money to do more specific design functions.

The way the ship building projects generally work at this point are:

Preliminary Design Review:  contractor is convincing the customer that the general design direction they want to go will meet the requirements.  These documents describe general connections and block diagrams (aka: Nav radars connect to combat management, gyro, GPS and navigation system)

Critical Design Review: show the customer specific implementation.  Documents should be much more representative of the final solution. (specific Nav Radar chosen, power feeds, locations of equipment, types of cables connecting to CMS, gyro, GPS, nav system)

Final Design Review:  show the customer you can now build.  Documents are the ones you can build the system off of.  The blueprints.  At this point there should be no engineering changes, or problems from the customer, as the customer signs off on the final design and you get to building.

I suspect that CSC will do similar things to AOPS and JSS where the build will be happening concurrent to this process.  For example there is no reason you can't start building low risk blocks, such as crew quarters or storage spaces early without having a Final Design Review approved.  There are flaws as change late in the game can lead to cost and delay, but waiting until FDR to start building is also expensive.  There might also be some systems that go through FDR at different times depending on their urgency or the fact they are installed after the ship is built.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2020, 09:14:52 by Underway »

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 504
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1809 on: September 02, 2020, 17:46:01 »
Australia is slowly progressing with theirs

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/asc-shipbuilding-signs-contract-for-hunter-class-frigate-prototyping/

and looking to locally source gearboxes?

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/australia-launches-feasibility-study-into-gearboxes-for-hunter-batches/

it's interesting in that I thought there was going to be a common propulsion system at least and would hardly make sense for anyone to run such small one off runs

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/

especially as it looks like it's hard enough to keep these niche industries going

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/closure-of-ge-rugby-electric-motor-plant-threatens-supply-of-royal-navy-propulsion-systems/

any idea what the RCN plans are?

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 504
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1811 on: September 02, 2020, 20:50:04 »
Thanks Uzulu so the UK, Australia and Canada could have completely different propulsion systems? I can see where this can get bogged down as I doubt all these components can be swapped out with a snap of the fingers 1 gas turbine, 4 diesels, 2 electric motors and the gearboxes

The Rolls-Royce MT30 is rated at 36MW so the comparable GE would be LM2500+G4 (35.3 MW)?

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1812 on: September 03, 2020, 11:07:09 »
The Rolls-Royce MT30 is rated at 36MW so the comparable GE would be LM2500+G4 (35.3 MW)?
FREMM uses the LM2500+G4.  And maybe also FFG(X)?

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1813 on: September 03, 2020, 13:15:32 »
except for the obvious advantage of fleet commonality for parts and training (if applicable) is there any upside to changing power systems from those in the initial plans?  Hull design, mounting supports, cable runs would all have to be recalculated and new blueprints drafted, proofed etc.  That is costly and increases the potential for design error.  So why consider it?

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,655
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1814 on: September 03, 2020, 13:18:38 »
Because that’s what we do.
... Move!! ...

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 31,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1815 on: September 03, 2020, 15:06:45 »
sounds like someone with too little to do trying to justify his/her position rather than looking for real work

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 504
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1816 on: September 03, 2020, 16:14:39 »
It probably worth exploring I guess in the sense of parts availability and security if we can source Canadian/American alternatives, and maybe introduce some competition for the sake of cost control. I mean the Australians are doing the same thing so? Hard to believe that Australia or Canada could maintain their own supply lines on these systems economically though, but I have no idea. Do we have someone in Canada that can handle the GT, diesels, gearing and electric motors?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,173
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1817 on: September 04, 2020, 12:57:08 »
except for the obvious advantage of fleet commonality for parts and training (if applicable) is there any upside to changing power systems from those in the initial plans?  Hull design, mounting supports, cable runs would all have to be recalculated and new blueprints drafted, proofed etc.  That is costly and increases the potential for design error.  So why consider it?

Because there is probably a certain amount of the contract that must be spent in Australia.  Canada does the exact same thing all the time.  Unless the solution is already Canadian made one of the major parts of shipbuilding is to develop/increase Canadian industry.  Why by diesel generator X when generator Y is supposed to do the same thing, then we charge Canada for the change, the redesign work and get the check in the box for Canadian content.  This is how projects work.

Commonality with allied fleets was never, ever one of the goals of the CSC project or the Hunter class.  It was just picked out by us navy nerds as an advantage.