• 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

Colin P said:
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...

The sailors of the future HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are already facepalming.
Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM.

I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.
Colin P said:
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...

If a new HMCS "DOUBLE" RAINBOW is a modern 7000 tonne AAW destroyer, with solid combat capabilities, open architecture and room to grow then I would happily sail on her.  Though I would prefer HMCS BIFROST if we're going with rainbow type names.

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM.
I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.

A ship named after a battle, which was named for the farm  ...  :p  They should have named it STONEY CREEK or LUNDY'S LANE which were far more important battles IMHO, and also sound way better.
I know it's named after the battle near the farm, but you will be driving these ship's all over the planet: How many time will the crew have to explain why their ship's name refers to a farm?

At least the other two,  Queenston and Chateauguay, sound like town names - which they are - and which is a naming convention found in many navies, so it is not surprising to people to see that on a ship.

So, yes, Stoney Creek would have been better for the third one.
What's wrong with, the Nancy?  Great story of triumph over adversity and the original is still with us (sort of)
whiskey601 said:
Since these are supply ships, why not "Loblaws" and "Metro"?

Or "Real Canadian Superstore" on the Esq-based one and "Real Atlantic Superstore" for the Hfx-based one  :nod:
Well this came out of left field a bit: http://www.rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/publicrelations_1/news_1/2016_05_25_cansec_mf_star_elta.php

And some analysis on the CASR site:  http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-canadian-surface-combatant-elta.htm

Of note CASR completely screws up the difference between AESA and PESA radar.  The AN/SPY-1 is a PESA radar.  The new AN/SPY-3 is AESA IIRC.

I wonder if this is aimed at the gov't selection or the eventual winner.  We still don't really know how exactly the ship will be designed but all indications are that the bidder shows up with a complete combat systems package for us to chose from.

Overall it really depends on the overall missile/radar/combat package together.  If you go the SM2, ESSM route you need a fire control radar of some type.  That can be from a AN/SPG-62 type system  or a STIR like the US or Canada respectively.  Other option is an APAR type system with interrupted wave illumination like the Dutch, Germans, Danish.  If you go the Aster route (with PAAMS or something similar) system fire control radar is not required so you just need volume search radars.  Also you need to decide how many enemy aircraft you want to engage at a time and how you want that engagement to be organized, which would change the system combination you are using.

It's not an easy decision and I'm not sure if there is any domestic doctrine that would help the navy decide one way or the other.
One has heard the Pentagon, esp. NORTHCOM, would like the CSCs to have a missile defence capability:

SM-3 Cooperative Development Program is the joint U.S.-Japan development of a 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3 missile, designated SM-3 Block IIA, to defeat longer range ballistic missiles. Deployment begins in 2018.

Future Capabilities

Engagement of longer range ballistic missiles.

Compatible with the air defence role for CSCs?

Mark Collins
I'd like to know the range of the Aegis systems to compare with the 2000km Ballistic Missile detection range of the Smart-L.



They now have developed a data-link that allows the Smart-L/APAR system to work with the SM3.

RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:

Crucial fleet of global-combat frigates is indefinitely delayed
Type 26 navy frigates do not have go-ahead, MoD says amid budget pressures, technical problems and jobs fears

A new fleet of frigates, described as “global combat ships” designed to play crucial roles, has been delayed indefinitely, the Ministry of Defence has said in testy exchanges with MPs over huge financial and technical problems facing the navy’s surface vessels.

Delays in building the Type 26 frigates – a project promised by David Cameron before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum – is threatening shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde in Scotland.

The project’s problems come on top of serious mechanical failures in the navy’s new fleet of Type 45 destroyers. Key tasks of the navy’s frigates and destroyers include protecting two new large aircraft carriers now being assembled in Rosyth as well as Trident nuclear weapons submarines approaching and leaving their base on the Clyde.
Destroyers will break down if sent to Middle East, admits Royal Navy
Read more

“I can’t give you a time or a date,” Tony Douglas, the MoD’s top official responsible for military equipment, said on Wednesday after he was asked by MPs on the Commons defence committee when the frigate design would be approved. “It could be next year.” Harriet Baldwin, a new junior defence minister, told the MPs: “We do not know yet.”..

The number of planned new frigates has already been cut from 13 to eight, though the MoD has the option to build five smaller and cheaper general-purpose vessels. One of the problems is how to make the frigates as quiet as possible to make it harder for them to be detected by Russian submarines…”

Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:

USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?

I get the sense that part of the evolving Brexit strategy involves taking the 350 MUKP per week that was going to the EU for allocation and investing a significant portion of it in increased Defence capabilities.

The rest will go directly to farmers to continue their EU subsidies, to the NHS and to Education.

The recent vote on Trident Renewal I see as an interesting gambit going into the Brexit negotiations.  It was not strictly necessary as it required no new money to be immediately voted.  It had an interesting advantage, from the Tory point of view, of discomfiting Labour.  But I think the real purpose going into the EU negotiations was to remind the Euros that the UK has nukes, and a PM with a trigger and a willingness to use them, and they do not.    The French being an entity unto themselves.

Kind of like walking into a room, putting your gun on the table and then offering to start negotiations.  A point probably not lost on the Poles or the Americans.

MarkOttawa said:
RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:

Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:


I think that it has to be operational to be a candidate.  This seems to remove it.
RE the Type 26 :

In written form :

Excerpt from above :
The design, as I indicated before, factually, is approximately 60% complete at the moment. There is a programme, obviously, to close out. There is a big part of that in the compartmentalisation of the ship’s internal structure and the manner in which many of the communications systems are completed and integrated

The T26 is not going to be hitting water anytime soon.....2025 at the earliest is my guess.
I'm not sure if I'd place money on OMT, Navantia, or DCNS (my personal favourite).
Fincanteri will be looking for work for its yards, not ours.

I would like to see a variant of the F125 built by TK (apparently a 7200 tonne frigate!!! :))  with a little more punch such as at least 2 and preferably 4 MK 57 VLS tucked in wherever they might fit best.  Keep the OM 127mm and buy the Vulcano rounds, and that would be one mighty tough ship.

Oh, oh-IP glitch--trust in Irving?

Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data
Geek wars: Ottawa faces revolt among ship designers over intellectual property demand

A key behind-the-scenes battle, which could affect the future of the Trudeau government's multi-billion dollar frigate replacement program for decades, has been fought this week in the back rooms of Ottawa.

It relates to an overarching demand by National Defence and Public Services for ship designers to hand over virtually all their intellectual property data for the complex combat systems that would be installed on the warships.

A copy of the draft request for proposals, obtained by CBC News, shows the federal government is asking companies competing to design Canada's next generation of warships for all their foreground and background data.

The government will be the owner of the information — including critical software coding — but will license it to Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor on the project...

A series of closed-door meetings took place this week involving federal officials and Irving representatives. Another series of meetings will take place in Halifax on Aug. 15-16 with ship designers who want to bid on the Canadian Surface Combatant program, which is expected to cost $30 billion or more.

Among the companies in line to provide an off-the-shelf design include British-based BAE Systems Inc.; DCNS, the French warship-maker; and U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.
High stakes for taxpayers

The intellectual property issue is "huge," according to several government and industry sources who spoke to CBC News on background because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The data is crucial not only for ship construction, but for the lucrative long-term maintenance contracts that will follow.

If the government doesn't get the negotiation just right, it could cost taxpayers untold hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in licencing fees, and even restrict the military's ability to update and use its own equipment...

The fear among bidders is not necessarily what Irving might do with data as much as who among the shipyard's partners and consultants —  including the U.S. naval warship architecture firm Gibbs & Cox — will have access to the licenced information [emphasis added].

In a statement, Irving Shipbuilding said it was committed to safeguarding the data.

"For the CSC program, discussions with Canada have only contemplated that any long-term IP rights will flow to Canada, with Irving Shipbuilding having a right to use CSC IP to the extent required to satisfy its CSC design and build contracts," said spokesman Sean Lewis.

"There has been nothing discussed that would put Irving Shipbuilding at an unfair advantage or unique position during the operational life of the ships."..

IP issues?

Colt - Diemaco?  Or am I mis-remembering something?