• 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

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,492
Points
1,140
"Destroyers" I think you can answer that yourself. :) They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things!

Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless. The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000. The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons. Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top. The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons. It is all over the map. And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.

Italian DDX
View attachment 68160
USN DDG(X)
View attachment 68161
PLAN 055
View attachment 68162

So by the CSC is in the water I guess 8000 tons will be "frigate" size.
(y)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,299
Points
1,010
At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?
Few things, Flight 1 burkes didn't have a hanger. Secondly burkes were designed to for their very heavy radar to be on 01 deck not in a mast. That changes things. And its not weapons, its all the equipment that is bulking CSC out.

As for naming conventions, they are only still called CSC right now. The class hasn't been decided upon. Besides ships are classified for their ROLE, not their size. Though politics does play a part (see US reclassing of the Tico's as a weird example).

Their role is, well multi-role. They aren't specialized. Which generally falls under the frigate classification. Also, the UK and Australia are labeling theirs as frigates. Call them whatever you like. It doesn't actually matter. Helicopter destroyers are aircraft carriers. Dutch AAW frigates are destroyers. Norwegian AAW frigates are frigates. Capability matters not names.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,114
Points
1,010
I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.

I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,299
Points
1,010
I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.

I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.
It is VERY different in that respect I can confirm.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
110
Points
630
There is tremendous pressure on right now to get steel cut in 2024, so minimizing changes to the basic design is one way to crash the schedule. However, this is a 20+ year project, so it is not unreasonable to expect that follow-on batches of ships will differ (perhaps dramatically) from the ships of Batch 1. We know the RCN would like to have 32 Mk41s, as they published information to that effect, so presumably some effort will be spent looking into the feasibility of adding another 8 cells during the design of the Batch 2 ships.

I don't think this story is completely written yet...
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
288
Points
930
"Destroyers" I think you can answer that yourself. :) They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things!

Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless. The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000. The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons. Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top. The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons. It is all over the map. And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.

Italian DDX
View attachment 68160

I've seen the Italian design referred to as a cruiser.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.

I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.
Then if memory serves crammed several more generations of kit into the hull.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
110
Points
630
There is tremendous pressure on right now to get steel cut in 2024, so minimizing changes to the basic design is one way to crash the schedule. However, this is a 20+ year project, so it is not unreasonable to expect that follow-on batches of ships will differ (perhaps dramatically) from the ships of Batch 1. We know the RCN would like to have 32 Mk41s, as they published information to that effect, so presumably some effort will be spent looking into the feasibility of adding another 8 cells during the design of the Batch 2 ships.

I don't think this story is completely written yet...
And stuff like this article is why the Navy wants to get things going as soon as possible, and is thus willing to sacrifice some capability in the name of speed:

Achieving a Cost-Effective Fleet in a Decade – Canadian Naval Review
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,492
Points
1,140
And stuff like this article is why the Navy wants to get things going as soon as possible, and is thus willing to sacrifice some capability in the name of speed:

Achieving a Cost-Effective Fleet in a Decade – Canadian Naval Review
Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO.

That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
399
Points
980
Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO.

That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?
The entire CAF needs to get smart about things. They need to break up the cost announcements. I understand that is the way accounting is done in the government. But you don't have to advertise it that way. Break the cost up for the press releases. Couple of points. The program is so long the total cost estimates are a fairytale. Plus no one at the start of the program will be around at the end to be held accountable anyways.

I do believe this is one of the major problems with procurement. The numbers are so big everyone needs a say. Make the numbers smaller. This what hurt the F35. The numbers are huge. Plus people see 200 million a plane. Cost is now approx. 80US.

With the CSC people will 80 Billion for 15 ships. That's over 5 billion a ship. They will then google cost of USN destroyer and see 1.5 to 2. And say we can 2 Burkes with some money leftover. That will total amount of digging anyone will do. They will then call for the program to be cancelled or changed.

One more point. After watching from afar over my lifetime. Would it not be better in some way for the CAF to get over the dislike of "micro" fleets and just buy a bunch more of things in much smaller batches than have nothing at all? Would not 5 - 10 AA systems be better than none? 3 fleets of 20 fighters than one of old or never to see new? etc. I do understand most CAF fleets are small to begin with, and the smaller the fleet the higher the cost in training, maintenance etc. Stop Canadianizing would help here. (one more advantage is that a problem with one system does ground everything) But right now the way things are is not working. my two cents.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
399
Points
980
CAF doesn't do cost announcements. The government does. CAF is there to smile and look happy we are getting ships.
OK but the CAF and DND does have accountants that could at least do a "backgrounder" or breakup the total cost structure and say it is this much this year and it over 20 years etc. They can do that..
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
277
Points
880
Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO.

That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?
That's a very poor article especially when it quotes the 30 Billion for the FREMM when the PBO itself said over 70 Billion when everything included. As well the 26.2 Billion that everybody loves to quote was only a placeholder when they didn't know the design or capabilities.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
110
Points
630
Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO.

That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?
The $82 Billion (or $56-60 Billion, depending on who you believe) is the Capital cost to build the ships and associated infrastructure (including improvements to existing infrastructure). It also includes all design costs, training costs (including new infrastructure), and documentation. Initial weapons loadouts are included. I believe (might be wrong) it also includes salaries, POL, and other supplies required to get the first of class to IOC. There are probably other items I have missed. What is not included are the Operating costs for the life of the fleet, which I believe were estimated by PMO to be in the $200 Billion range, out to the "mid 2070s". So, the total cost of this program is nothing to sneeze at, and could easily exceed $300 Billion if we ad in some extra Capital for mid-life refits. Those costs are spread out over at least 30 (and more likely 40) years, however, which is very important context when explaining these things to the average politician...
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
288
Points
930

It was more of a "it's a cruiser in everything but name" type of remarks.

I still find it a bit odd most navies seem so averse to classifying ships as cruisers.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,299
Points
1,010
It was more of a "it's a cruiser in everything but name" type of remarks.

I still find it a bit odd most navies seem so averse to classifying ships as cruisers.
Cruisers are a name that no longer makes sense because they had a very specific job. They were to sail around quickly (cruise) and destroy enemy merchant shipping. Run away from anything else basically. As such they had large engines, good guns and were lightly armoured. That surface raider role is not the job of aircraft and submarines.

Battlecruisers were overgunned, underarmoured ships that were designed to outfight anything they couldn't outrun. In practice, looking back on history they were a good class for colonialism (strategic mobility, powerful enough to suppress colonial holdings) but a bad class for peer warfare. HMS Hood was a battlecruiser. Eventually the battlecruiser and dreadnought evolved into one class the fast battleship. See how Hood did against a proper fast battleship the Bismark (yes I know there is more to the story, I'm using the example as shorthand).

By the end of WW2 Cruisers were basically AAW ships to escort carriers (most ships were AAW to escort carriers by the end of the war in the Pacific, it was not restricted to cruisers) and a few were used to continue on colonial ways.

Today modern destroyers (which have grown away from their torpedo boat/sub killing role to be replaced by frigates) have taken the AAW/CIC role away from "cruisers". As such cruisers are mainly a dead class, like battleships, with only a few holdouts kicking around. Because the role that cruisers filled (cruising) no longer exists.

However, the role for frigates (ASW, general purpose) and the role for destroyers (AAW, Command and Control) still does. Hence why they are the most common classes. So its not that navies are adverse to the name, its that the role for cruisers is gone, so you don't need to build one. Just like the role for battleships is gone.
 
Last edited:

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
I would like to revert to eighteen century nomenclature and classify the ships according to their number of guns VLS:
Ticos (122) would be 1st rate
Burkes (90-96) would be 2nd rate
Constellation (32) ... frigates / 5th rate

of course, Harpoons and NSM do not add, ... they're like the carronades.
Very simplistic... I know... lol.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,114
Points
1,010
I would like to revert to eighteen century nomenclature and classify the ships according to their number of guns VLS:
Ticos (122) would be 1st rate
Burkes (90-96) would be 2nd rate
Constellation (32) ... frigates / 5th rate

of course, Harpoons and NSM do not add, ... they're like the carronades.
Very simplistic... I know... lol.
Jack Aubrey/Patrick O’Brien fan?
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
Jack Aubrey/Patrick O’Brien fan?
Not really, I'm from Spain, descendant of garlic-eaters Dons,...
I'm fan of Naval History, but have another perspective 😉

"Tu regere imperio fluctus, Hispane memento"
[ Spain, remember, you (once) ruled the waves. ]
 
Top