Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Lumber]

Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod:

The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.

I'm allll about the ignorance.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.

From time to time a thesaurus comes in handy.

 

[GK .Dundas]

G2G


G+C, (No clue)

[/quote Most likely Gibbs and Cox  designed the world fastest ocean liner , just about every America's cup winner and some loveliest warships to grace the World's oceans.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Slightly  ff topic: but ...

Some time ago I came across something that complained that "we" (which ever country it was) was building yet another light cruiser sized destroyer that was to be armed like a frigate. My assumption was, and remains, that the complainer was talking about conventional guns and was thinking of warships circa 1960:

         

                  HMCS Ontario a light cruiser that served in the RCN until 1958                HMCS Victoriaville, a Prestonian class frigate that served in the RCN until 1973
                                                                8,800 tons                                                                                                              2,300 tons

Now, when I was serving, back in the 1990s, I had a very useful, UNCLASS, graphic that showed a ship with several "domes" over it showing very approximate radar coverages ("ranged" by time) and weapon coverage, ranged by type: guns missiles, etc. It wasn't terribly accurate but I found it useful, especially when briefing non-military audiences, to explain why we needed what many said was so much (too much) radio spectrum to detect, identify, track and engage various types of targets at various ranges. I also had another graphic, from the USN, as I recall, that showed something similar but for a carrier task force and I used it to explain that we could and routinely did integrate radar signals and fire control systems from several ships to get a complete picture and to engage the right targets with the right weapons at the right time.

Two questions:

    1. Do graphics like those, updated to take account of the 20 years that have passed since I retired, still exist? and, if they exist at all

    2. Can someone share them here, or are they "for official use only?"

I'm a bit concerned that some (many) people do not grasp the fact that modern warships need to be bigger to accommodate modern missile systems with all the paraphernalia that they have, and that putting bloody great radar antennæ on masts requires some "mass" beneath them just to keep the whole damned shebang upright.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

For those who know more than I do....

Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?

This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.


Matthew. 

 

[GR66]

For those who know more than I do....

Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?

This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.


Matthew. 

My impression is that the intended difference between the two versions is likely to be more about sensors and specific weapons loadouts rather than significant structural and mechanical design differences.

For example, the Iver Huitfeldt Class is an AAD design with APAR/Smart-L radar and 4 x Mk41 VLS (32 x SM-2) and 2 x Mk56 VLS (24 x ESSM) for Air Defence.  A GP/ASW version could be acheived without much major re-design by adding a Towed-Array Sonar, downgrading the radars to something more suited for self-defence (maybe same Smart-S combo as on the Absalon Class?), and maybe reducing the total number of missiles carried (2 x Mk41 and 2 x Mk56 VLS for 16 SM-2 and 24 x ESSM). 

I remember reading somewhere that the AA components of the Iver Huitfeldt Class (presumably both weapons and sensors?) accounted for 31% of the total cost of the vessels.  So "downgrading" it to a GP/ASW version should result in reduced costs for that version.

Personally I'd like to see a bit more customization between the two versions.  A GP/ASW version of the Iver Huitfeldt would be a pretty good replacement for the Halifax-Class frigates.  This ship is basically an Absalon class with 4 instead of 2 diesel engines, one less deck (the "Flex" deck removed) and a modified superstructure having a single helicopter hanger and smaller flight deck.  I'd put the Absalon topside (including the Flex deck) on the 4-diesel Iver Huitfeldt hull using the sensors and weapons of the latter to give it the AAD capability.  Having two helicopters and the Flex deck (for UUVs and UAVs) would make it an excellent ASW taskforce command ship and the Flex deck would allow it to be very useful for all kinds of other non-combat missions.  But i guess we'll just have to wait and see what is offered by the various bidders.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just my  :2c:....

I think I'd rather accept (1) less ship and ensure the remainder are full-kitted for ASW and AAD, then have the extra ship with reduced spec's.

Should the SHTF (which is what we should be procuring for with frontline ships), I don't think a Russian sub would eye up a GP version and say "Well, that's not their ASW version, so we should probably just leave them alone as it wouldn't be fair if we torpedo'd them."  Alternatively a Russian Tu-160 isn't going to analyze radar signals and defer unloading AShM's because the target doesn't have the upgraded Air Defense Radar.

The only other caveat is I hope we design based on probability that both UAV's and UUV's will become an ever-larger part of the ships' sensor suite, and build-in hangar, launch & electrical power capacity to accommodate.


M.

 

[Kirkhill]

So:

Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.

Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?

How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
How many sonar pickets?
How many sigint pickets?
How many OPs?

Next.

Having determined what sense capabilities are desired/required what does the Government propose to do with the information?

Send a strongly worded letter?
Make a large noise?
Bright light?
Send a Mountie?
Hog tie the miscreant?
Blow it out the water/sky?

How speedily and how often does it expect to do these things? 

What support is available to supply the capabilities by other means?  ie rapid delivery of missiles/torpedoes/mounties from shore and/or air?

Having defined these things then consider the number of hulls, and the size of the hulls, necessary to provide the capabilities.

Finally decide on how few sailors you put to sea at one time to manage those hulls.

And not all sailors have to be at sea, nor do all hulls have to have sailors.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:

So:

Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.

Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?
That's usually how it's done - hence the determined need for two types of CSC's an AAD/Command version and a GP version.

How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many sonar pickets?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many sigint pickets?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many OPs?
None: That is not how Navies work.
Next.

I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You will never get a straight answer from a government about what they want to do, not to mention want and need are different. I just saw a lecture where the Maggie demanded that the First Sea Lord send the Ark Royal to the Falklands immediately, she had to be reminded that they had scrapped it already.

 

[GR66]

Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role? 

For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?

Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.

However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship? 

 

[Kirkhill]

The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:

I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.

I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at. 

That about it?  [

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role? 

For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?

Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.

However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship?

Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at. 

That about it?  [

Annnnd we have a winner here.  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

hey it's a proven method

 

[quadrapiper]

hey it's a proven method

Need to come up with something like the ice-resistance/breaking scale for subs for the RFQ. "Must be able to ram five (5) Kilo-class without significan dockyard time?"

 

[GR66]

Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.

I understand the thought process behind this approach, but I think that the logic likely falls apart where the budget meets the area of operations.  I'm not sure how much of a cost savings (if any) you will actually get by splitting up the various sensors and weapons into separate platforms once you factor in the operating costs of purchasing and maintaining a bunch of different systems. 

Let's be extremely generous and assume that you could have double the number of each sensor type by splitting them up on to cheaper, single-purpose platforms.  It may sound like a huge capability increase (double the capability) but in real terms when you're talking about trying to cover an area the size say of the North Atlantic is it really a meaningful increase when we're talking about something like 20 vs 10 sensors in that area?  What about responding to any threats that you do locate?  What are the chances that you'll have the right type of weapon platform nearby to respond to what you detect?  If you plan on positioning weapons and sensors together in teams to avoid that problem aren't you really defeating the purpose of splitting the platforms in the first place?

If we were looking at a situation where we could afford dozens and dozens of UUVs, UAVs, Aerostats, "lilly pad" ships, missile-carriers, cheap ISR aircraft, arsenal ships and planes, etc. then I think what you are proposing could possibly work.  But if we can only afford a handful of each type of platform due to our budget limitations I think you risk not being able to respond to threats as effectively as with a smaller number of more robust platforms.

That doesn't mean that there aren't novel approaches (including smaller/cheaper elements to supplement the higher-end assets) that we could take to maximize our capabilities.  I think even the USN and RN with the issues with their Zumwalt and Type 45/26 classes are realizing that ultra-expensive, do-everything platforms aren't a feasible solution (even moreso with the RCN I'd say), so I think Canada should be more open-minded about possible solutions for our fleet.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just in terms of sensor distribution, I would love to see what the CSC project would morph into if the RCN were allowed to take direct ownership of the Aurora's and have the right to procure and manage all aircraft/uav's (potentially systems like Tritons or Guardians) in the offshore environment. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Royal Canadian Coastal Command?  [
Maybe we can get Viking to build us some flying boats.... :nod: