• 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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,206
Points
1,090
only a million for a design change?

Consider yourself very, very lucky…
Flashback to LockMart and Herc upgrades... where a new toilet costs $25k, but the airworthiness instruction sheet to install it costs north of a million...
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
273
Points
880
Closer look of the current scale model:

isgehAJ.jpg



 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,302
Points
1,140
Interesting. Wrong main gun (still showing the Mk 45), wrong mast, and showing a Phalanx on the port side midships (presumably there's one to Starboard as well). I think that's a pretty old model. It does have 24 VLS though...
The models probably won't be updated, unless the CF commissions one, or until the first ship is launched and Irving wants to market it beyond the RCN.
It's not cheap - and for the purposes of a trade show it's close enough.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,804
Points
1,040
So. Just curious.

The US Marines have been landing F 35Bs on Japanese light aircraft carriers designed for helicopter ASW escort work.


Makes me wonder whether a frigate, like our current and upcoming ones, could handle that as well with the significantly smaller deck and hanger space.

:unsure:
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
So. Just curious.

The US Marines have been landing F 35Bs on Japanese light aircraft carriers designed for helicopter ASW escort work.



Makes me wonder whether a frigate, like our current and upcoming ones, could handle that as well with the significantly smaller deck and hanger space.

:unsure:
Nope. Wind over deck is totally wrong. Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,036
Points
1,040
Nope. Wind over deck is totally wrong. Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.
So obviously there will soon be a CSC change order submitted so that they are equipped for, but not with F-35B landing capability elements.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,638
Points
1,010
Nope. Wind over deck is totally wrong. Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.
Pretty much what Underway said.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
425
Points
880
Underway and SKT basically stated the technical reasons that prevent such landings on a destroyer/frigate helicopter deck (though, I am sure in case of flying emergency, a F-35B pilot would probably prefer to attempt it rather than ditch in the water). But they did not address the tactical reasons, which come down to: While a frigate with a tail and a helicopter makes a powerful ASW weapon, what useful thing could a frigate carrying a single F-35B do, i.e. how much of a threat to any one would it constitute. You would need to use in concerted effort a fleet of forty destroyers and frigates to give yourself the projection/warfighting power of a single aircraft carrier (and I am not talking US super-carriers here but the more modest European/Japanese/Indian ones). Much easier and cheaper to have a carrier strike group.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,589
Points
1,060
While I agree with you OGBD I think your estimate underplays the value of the F35. It may have more in common with the Sea King than the Hornet in some regards.

The sensor suite and its value as an ISR asset seems to mean that it is more frequently deployed in one and two aircraft sorties rather than squadron and wing operations. Witness the Royal Marines bragging about their STA types working with their own personal F35s. Also the 2 small squadrons of 10 on the QE and the deployment to the Japanese Carrier which would be smaller than the old Invincible.

Having said that, I still agree with you. Tactically F-35s on CSCs seems a little too far out even for me.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,804
Points
1,040
It's a bit of pushing the envelope on my part.

I was thinking of the fact that the US has these monstrous ships with thousands of crew and dozens of supporting vessels which are hard to hide and, in the face of long range strike missiles, is putting all of your eggs in one basket.

The Japanese heli-carriers are smaller and cheaper albeit they too would need a fair bit of a security screen.

That got my mind to wandering to just how small a vessel and how stealthy or disguised could it be and still serve as a carrier for a small number of F-35s together with a small fleet of wingman-like drones that would allow you to spread your assets in a wide web for a much more reasonable amount of investment and, perhaps, greater redundancy and survivability. In essence you create mass through a variety of dispersed assets concentrating their firepower through coordination.

To this point much of the carrier's size is dependent on the flight deck needed for takeoffs and landings. The F-35B changes that equation a bit.

The Marines have started to think differently. Maybe the Navy should, too.

🍻
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
501
Points
960
It's a bit of pushing the envelope on my part.

I was thinking of the fact that the US has these monstrous ships with thousands of crew and dozens of supporting vessels which are hard to hide and, in the face of long range strike missiles, is putting all of your eggs in one basket.

The Japanese heli-carriers are smaller and cheaper albeit they too would need a fair bit of a security screen.

That got my mind to wandering to just how small a vessel and how stealthy or disguised could it be and still serve as a carrier for a small number of F-35s together with a small fleet of wingman-like drones that would allow you to spread your assets in a wide web for a much more reasonable amount of investment and, perhaps, greater redundancy and survivability. In essence you create mass through a variety of dispersed assets concentrating their firepower through coordination.

To this point much of the carrier's size is dependent on the flight deck needed for takeoffs and landings. The F-35B changes that equation a bit.

The Marines have started to think differently. Maybe the Navy should, too.

🍻
My mind seems to recall the Brits using alternative ships to transport harriers to the Falklands but if it is the sensor suite you wish to deploy why not equip a cyclone sized helicopter and use it as a node to coordinate fleet operations without the need for a carrier?
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
325
Points
930
Maybe we could revisit the idea of buying or building Mistral class amphibious assault ships, and strengthen the deck for F-35Bs.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,914
Points
1,160
Maybe we could revisit the idea of buying or building Mistral class amphibious assault ships, and strengthen the deck for F-35Bs.
It also requires that the elevators and hangers can handle the aircraft, for the F35b , the Mistrals not be my first choice, I would go with a vessel based on the San Juan 1/Canberra Class giving some aviation and amphibious benefits as well. However to fit into our current budget and crewing realities, the Mistrals with helicopters are a far better fit for Canada. I would give up a AOP's and a CSC for them.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,589
Points
1,060
My mind seems to recall the Brits using alternative ships to transport harriers to the Falklands but if it is the sensor suite you wish to deploy why not equip a cyclone sized helicopter and use it as a node to coordinate fleet operations without the need for a carrier?

Or Valors with the F35s Distributed Aperture Sensors?


The interesting part is that if the Marines are operating off the Hyugas they are operating without benefit of the Ski Jump to assist their take-off. And the carrier is in the same tonnage range as the Dutch Rotterdam.

300px-HNLMS_Rotterdam_at_Nieuwe_Waterweg%2C_Starboard_Bow%2C_05.09.2016.jpg


Atlantic Conveyor.

107628.jpg


The key elements seem to be, due to the hot wash, a suitable protective pad and the right load bearing capacity.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
107628.jpg


The key elements seem to be, due to the hot wash, a suitable protective pad and the right load bearing capacity.
I'm telling you right now there is no way in hell that modern pilots take that sort of risk. The RCAF won't take a non-operational risk like that (outside of test flying), It is just not in their DNA.

Can't even get a helicopter to land on a ship without a proper flight deck management system now. The cyclones are not as bouncy as the Sea Kings apparently. ;)

*in no way was this intended as disparaging to my airforce brethren. I save the good stuff for the mess.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,187
Points
1,040
Not a pilot but I would think those seacan walls would create some interesting ground effect vortices.
 
Top