• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Adaptable Strike Frigate

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.

It's smart to build them this way. Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward. And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.

You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.
I absolutely appreciate the logic behind doing it this way, particularly as it should occur relatively early in the build cycle. I was concerned that if it were to be more of a half and half split, around ship 8 or so, that there could be a repeat of the CPF block 2 situation. IIRC the second flight of HAL were to have better accommodations for TG command staff, more numerous VLS etc, but it didn’t transpire. If the will is to address any shortcomings by ship 4, that’s encouraging.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,140
The Tribals (Post TRUMP) were AAW C2 ships. It’s a capability that we need and there are residual memories within the fleet that will help in regaining that knowledge.
I agree that there will be a need (or, to be clearer, there is currently a need), for AAW C2 ships, I just question how much residual knowledge/experience will have value after an elapsed time period of 20+yrs.
I suspect any real knowledge/experience will be gained by officer/enlisted exchange training opportunities within the RN and/or USN over the next 5-10yrs.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,210
The current CO of Glace Bay was an ORO in a 280. By the time the first CSC is in the water he should be still in a position to have a hand in training the next generation of operators.

That's the hope anyway.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.

It's smart to build them this way. Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward. And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.

You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.
The PBO CSC report figure 2-1 implies that that the Development of the CSC will drop quickly when Acquisition starts. No doubt that there will be differences between the first few and subsequent ships. But that’s all i see.
 

Attachments

  • PBO CSC 2022.pdf
    350.6 KB · Views: 8

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,647
Points
1,110
It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.

Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.

Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.
My big hope is that more frigates = thorough maintenance. Alas…
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
It might be beneficial if the politicians made up their minds on what the RCN is supposed to be and supposed to do.

Pay no attention to me - I eat crayons.
When the RCN decides on that same thing, the government will be the first to know... :rolleyes:

The PBO CSC report figure 2-1 implies that that the Development of the CSC will drop quickly when Acquisition starts. No doubt that there will be differences between the first few and subsequent ships. But that’s all i see.
A lot of the development costs will be done at that point, but adding some more VLS and changing out a gun over the entire developement of all the other systems is an entirlely different prospect.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,140
When the RCN decides on that same thing, the government will be the first to know... :rolleyes:


A lot of the development costs will be done at that point, but adding some more VLS and changing out a gun over the entire developement of all the other systems is an entirlely different prospect.
I'm curious to understand why the perceived need to lower the capabilities of the main gun to that of a lessor one for some of the CSC. I have been listening to everyone on here (the all encompassing 'army.ca' site) extol the virtues of having commonality of weapons platforms and/or other systems across systems is a good thing as it reduces maintenance/training costs and timelines. If a new main gun is introduced into the CSC mix, the RCN will go from its current 2 naval gun inventory to 3, which in turn means that training/maintenance costs/timelines will increase by 1/3. The storage requirements/space of ammo will increase by 1/3. The process of procuring ammo for this new gun (which will more than likely only ever number 3 or 4) will increase accordingly. How can this be a good thing?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,835
Points
1,010
I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
70
Points
380
Is there available space & weight to increase the EXLS cells (for CAMM missiles) from 6 to 9?
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.
Is the 76 an appropriate compromise between the other two weapons? With VULCANO rounds you have the precision and range for some shore bombardment capability but you also have a choice of ammunition and a higher rate of fire to presumably be more effective against air threats.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
I don’t have any special insight, but I think recent events have conspired to change thinking on the relative merits of a 5 inch 54 main gun vs 57mm (a much more effective gun against UAV type targets), if the tradeoff is missile capacity (which it is- bigger gun/ammo means more space and weight. That is always the tradeoff on a ship). I suspect the first three were designed and the guns ordered, so might as well go ahead with them. I actually like the fact we will see a bit of a mix in the Fleet in the future.
Leaving how complex the change of the main gun may be aside;

I can’t imagine the goal is to be able to shoot down UAVs using a direct hit. Instead I was thinking using proximity shells to pepper the UAV with fragments and submunitions.

127/64 compatibility

The Marline WS

Yup I’m retired.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
Leaving how complex the change of the main gun may be aside;

I can’t imagine the goal is to be able to shoot down UAVs using a direct hit. Instead I was thinking using proximity shells to pepper the UAV with fragments and submunitions.

127/64 compatibility

The Marline WS

Yup I’m retired.
Changing down from a 5" will be easier than changing up to it. So I be happy they keep the 5" for now and build the design for that with option of fitting a small gun into the space for the 5" later.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
I'm curious to understand why the perceived need to lower the capabilities of the main gun to that of a lessor one for some of the CSC. I have been listening to everyone on here (the all encompassing 'army.ca' site) extol the virtues of having commonality of weapons platforms and/or other systems across systems is a good thing as it reduces maintenance/training costs and timelines. If a new main gun is introduced into the CSC mix, the RCN will go from its current 2 naval gun inventory to 3, which in turn means that training/maintenance costs/timelines will increase by 1/3. The storage requirements/space of ammo will increase by 1/3. The process of procuring ammo for this new gun (which will more than likely only ever number 3 or 4) will increase accordingly. How can this be a good thing?

Trade-off, not lower capability. 127mm is a bad AAW weapon and an excellent land attack and surface warfare weapon. 57mm is an excellent defensive AAW system. And if a 57mm is taken instead of a 127mm then we might be able to get another row of missiles installed, which of course changes capability again.

Commonality is fine IF the capabilities are met by comonality. If the capabilites are not met through comonality and require a mix of weapon systems then that's what the RCN needs to look at.

Lets also remember that the final design review for Block I of CSC is still a few years away with initial steel being cut expected 2024 and full build started 2025. This means that discussions on Block II will only truely begin 2027ish as the people are freed from Block I duties. So any loadout change is still drawing board discussion until we start getting Block I at a minimum.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,835
Points
1,010
I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?
Then you lose that sweet, sweet 220 rd/min rate of fire….
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
Then you lose that sweet, sweet 220 rd/min rate of fire….
My favourite part of tours is explaining how many rounds that gun can put out. It never fails to impress the crowd, particularly when you play a recording of the rate of fire to make it real to the listeners.

I understood that navies as much as they like the fast firing 57mm, that they are concerned that the kill range is to close to the ship and the possibility of being hit by the remains of the missile are still real. Hence the look at upgunning to 76-127mm to get the kill zone further from the ship?
I don't trust the 127mm to be any good at AAW. I might be wrong but it's rate of fire is just so low that you have less rounds to adjust against a manouvering target.

76mm is a great gun, but again using a gun to hit a target far from the ship likely means you aren't hitting the target unless it doesn't manouver well.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
686
Points
910
My understanding was that we were going back to the 127mm (sometimes called the 5 inch gun ;) ) gun as a surface warfare and land support weapon - not as an AAW weapon at all.
 
Top