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

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Is this the beginning of the cost cutting-going from 32 to 24 VLS? There was already lots of criticism on this in comparison to the Arleigh Burke

I see you kinda answered above

But still concerns about weight management?
I don't know about the weight but going from the Australian program where it was published that they were mostly done design and had only 270ish reserve tons for the hull form. That is very tight. All other things being equal Canada has a heavier helicopter which would after stability calculations make that reserve weight much smaller.

We might not have been willing to take a risk with having that kind of weight reserve, which after all is a calculation. There is also the consideration of speed which is critical for a number of tasks, stability, and future growth.

Given that our mast is different and we have the ExLS up high there just might not have been the weight available for 8 more VLS.

Too many variables.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
Before the insanity starts, I suspect that the VLS change was due to two things. First, that mast is much more significant than the previous version. That has to cut into design margin.

Second, the addition of the VLS amidships is also high on the ship. The CAMM missiles may have also eaten into that margin.

This all being said, its still 24 CAMM and 96 ESSM II for self defence. Or likely 16 SM families, 32 ESSM II, and 24 CAMM. That's a ridiculous improvement over HFX class.

As for how heavy the armament is, that would be an odd discussion.
The UK version has 24 Mk41VLS with no AAW missiles to place in them. It will also have 48 individual CAMM launchers. I suspect that cruise missiles are slated for those VLS, either anti-ship or land attack. Perhaps the UK is future-proofing as well
While a major leap over CPF capability, it's down a bit in over all area defense compared to a 280, in terms of SM family birds. I guess this is somewhat offset by the radar and engagement suite being more accurate and responsive, but it still seems like a let down. Having a 32 cell vls would've allowed a single CSC to carry 26 standard missiles, 24 ESSM and 24 CAMM. Having 24 cells in an Australian or UK T-26 is not as big a deal given they have dedicated AAD vessels. As it stands now, the new US CONSTELLATION class frigates will be outfitted with a 32 cell VLS, giving them more flexibility then our major surface combatant.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
I don't know about the weight but going from the Australian program where it was published that they were mostly done design and had only 270ish reserve tons for the hull form. That is very tight. All other things being equal Canada has a heavier helicopter which would after stability calculations make that reserve weight much smaller.

We might not have been willing to take a risk with having that kind of weight reserve, which after all is a calculation. There is also the consideration of speed which is critical for a number of tasks, stability, and future growth.

Given that our mast is different and we have the ExLS up high there just might not have been the weight available for 8 more VLS.

Too many variables.
Do we know for certain they have reduced the number of VLS? Is a drawing enough to make this conclusion?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
I'm going off the drawing they released. So I expect that its likely true. LMC updated it recently on their website and I expect they waited until after the election was over for a reason.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
Makes me think that we're trying to do too much with one hull and arguably should have gone with a class of 5 AWD ships and then a seperate class of 10 GP. I understand there's a benefit to having all 15 ships the same, but it certainly seems like there's a significant drawback in this case.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
While a major leap over CPF capability, it's down a bit in over all area defense compared to a 280, in terms of SM family birds. I guess this is somewhat offset by the radar and engagement suite being more accurate and responsive, but it still seems like a let down. Having a 32 cell vls would've allowed a single CSC to carry 26 standard missiles, 24 ESSM and 24 CAMM. Having 24 cells in an Australian or UK T-26 is not as big a deal given they have dedicated AAD vessels. As it stands now, the new US CONSTELLATION class frigates will be outfitted with a 32 cell VLS, giving them more flexibility then our major surface combatant.
I agree with a bit of a letdown. I'm a glass-half-full guy, but this one kinda stung.

With the elimination of 8 VLS from expected, we went from the most heavily armed T26 variant to the least (by 2 VLS). However, I think as a naval warfare community we overrate the number of "guns" and underrate sensors/EW. Also, we have a tendency, like in sports, to underrate the team and overrate the player.

When you consider the CSC was designed with a TG in mind the overall CSC TG missile defense is significantly improved from the 280 TG perspective. A TG of three CSC with an assumed loadout of 16 SM2, 32 ESSM2, 24 CAMM each would have 16 more SM2, 48 more ESSM2 and 72
CAMM than the traditional 280 + 2 Frigate TG.

You can also 3*127mm over a 76mm and 2*57mm. And an extra 8 Anti-ship missiles.

So the TG got much much more deadly and survivable overall.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Would we even be able to afford to fill all those cells as it is, assume half the fleet at sea at once?
VLS likely would be loaded with the mission in mind. Ships currently sail without ESSM or Harpoons for various reasons all the time. Mk41 VLS will give some crazy flexibility we didn't have before. There will likely be a minimum loadout of ESSM (say 24) and CAMM (24). The rest are flex spots.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
I agree with a bit of a letdown. I'm a glass-half-full guy, but this one kinda stung.

With the elimination of 8 VLS from expected, we went from the most heavily armed T26 variant to the least (by 2 VLS). However, I think as a naval warfare community we overrate the number of "guns" and underrate sensors/EW. Also, we have a tendency, like in sports, to underrate the team and overrate the player.

When you consider the CSC was designed with a TG in mind the overall CSC TG missile defense is significantly improved from the 280 TG perspective. A TG of three CSC with an assumed loadout of 16 SM2, 32 ESSM2, 24 CAMM each would have 16 more SM2, 48 more ESSM2 and 72
CAMM than the traditional 280 + 2 Frigate TG.

You can also 3*127mm over a 76mm and 2*57mm. And an extra 8 Anti-ship missiles.

So the TG got much much more deadly and survivable overall.
I completely agree with how the TG would negate a good deal of the drawbacks of a single ship. I do find myself wondering how frequently a 3 ship TG will deploy as a whole. Given maintenance, training and workups, not to mention only 2 Oilers, I feel like a single ship deployment happens more frequently than a TG. But, again, it's still more pop than a HALIFAX and we've been doing single ship deployments with those continually. Still grinds my gears, tho...
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,578
Points
1,140
A bit off topic - but the French-Greeks announced a new naval deal. The timelines to deliver the first ship by the French are aggressive to say the least - and completely light-speed by our standards.

"The $5bn deal will provide Athens with three state-of-the-art Belharra frigates and three Gowind corvettes, with an option for one more of each."
"According to local reports, the ships would be delivered by 2026, with the first frigate arriving as early as 2024."

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,324
Points
1,360
If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.
Size may not linearly indicate weight increase. Besides, the revised mast appears to put IRST up much higher, for a much farther optical horizon, and the capabilities of a full-blown SPY-7/AEGIS fitment is pretty hard to ignore (especially compared to the 280’s SPQ-501 and SPQ-502 AD radars).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.
Is it a reduction though? Or just a reduction from what they published earlier.

Size may not linearly indicate weight increase. Besides, the revised mast appears to put IRST up much higher, for a much farther optical horizon, and the capabilities of a full-blown SPY-7/AEGIS fitment is pretty hard to ignore (especially compared to the 280’s SPQ-501 and SPQ-502 AD radars).

Agree with everything said. Size and weight are not necessarily related. Australian masts are odd because the CEAFAR/MOUNT configurations need particular angles. This might mean just a large geometric shape with empty space inside. Ours might have equipment and cooling in there.

There may be other considerations we don't know about. Really speculation at this point. Perhaps the RCN wants armored plating around the ExLS so small arms can't penetrate. Perhaps the gap shown between each group of 8 VLS is a heavy firebreak to avoid the German Sanchen class incident where a single restrained firing of a missile caused the writeoff of the entire 32 VLS.

Survivability is one of the key features of RCN ship design. There may be tradeoffs for things we can't see.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,825
Points
1,160
The cost of the munitions etc, is fairly insignificant in the grande scheme.
I would not be surprised if most of the smaller navies can't afford to have all their ships loaded out and have no reloads. At a million a pop for some of the missiles, they be hard to justify large stocks that have to be rotated.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
It's still curious, this VLS thing. I checked the weight of an 8-cell strike length module, and it's ~15,000 Kg. An SM2 3C plus Mk13 canister is ~1400 Kg. Eight SM2 3Cs and eight Mk13 cannister would weigh ~11,200 Kg, so the total weight of the 8-cell module + missiles/canisters is ~26,200 Kg (26 tons). 26 tons is not inconsequential, but on a ship of this size hardly seems like enough of a difference to make a difference.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,324
Points
1,360
It's still curious, this VLS thing. I checked the weight of an 8-cell strike length module, and it's ~15,000 Kg. An SM2 3C plus Mk13 canister is ~1400 Kg. Eight SM2 3Cs and eight Mk13 cannister would weigh ~11,200 Kg, so the total weight of the 8-cell module + missiles/canisters is ~26,200 Kg (26 tons). 26 tons is not inconsequential, but on a ship of this size hardly seems like enough of a difference to make a difference.
And would it be any more top-heavy than the 280s? (either TRUMP or original bunny-ears)
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
56
Points
430
And would it be any more top-heavy than the 280s? (either TRUMP or original bunny-ears)
I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?
 
Top