Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Correct. And the operators of the Bras D'or had to be naval aviators trained on jetplanes that also held a watchkeeping/command certificate.

 

[CBH99]

I also think we are getting our arms twisted.

Certainly seems out of character for any Canadian government, especially a Liberal government, to be progressing so much in different areas.

8 or 9 MRTT"s? 15 CSC with all this state of the art weaponry? 88 CF-35's rather than 65?
Possibly 16 P88's?


Yeah. Seems like someone is twisting our arm. Personally, I'm glad.

 

[GR66]

I own a Japanese car. Maybe we should stop throwing money at the Irwins.

Well, the CSC's being built in Canada is a done deal and I highly doubt we'll get a combatant to replace the Kingston's.

I know the idea has been mentioned before, but the RNLN is looking at "low manned platforms" to augment the firepower of their frigate fleet. In other words a commercial hull based "arsenal ship" with containerized weapons launchers. Have one built for each CSC to double our fleet firepower without having to double the crew requirements.

I'd imagine that the manning of these could handled by the Reserves and the hulls could be used for basic seamanship training at relatively low cost, but otherwise they could mostly be tied alongside as a surge capability when things get serious.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 77922
View attachment 77923
The RCN once had an innovative naval cockpit as well.

That looks a lot like the old Mark V SOC cockpit (took that years ago with my kids at the SEAL Museum in Ft Pierce FL)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not quite Kevin. The Bras D'or cockpit (it was called the cockpit -not the bridge, BTW) was just about as wide as the picture you see. No wider, so much smaller than the old Mk V. It wasn't deep either, as it could just accomodate the two pilots, then only had a small jump seat behind that you could only use after closing the access hatch.

It was conceived and designed as an airplane cockpit, controls included, as some of the equipment was similar, with similar functions. For instance, if you look to the left of the throttles, you can see a large control that looks like airplanes flaps controls. It is a trim tab system to help trim the underwater wings to generate lift. Same concept as flaps - similar controls.

All this makes perfect sense when you remember that Bras D'or was constructed by that well known shipyard: Canadair.

 

[Stoker]

Not quite Kevin. The Bras D'or cockpit (it was called the cockpit -not the bridge, BTW) was just about as wide as the picture you see. No wider, so much smaller than the old Mk V. It wasn't deep either, as it could just accomodate the two pilots, then only had a small jump seat behind that you could only use after closing the access hatch.

It was conceived and designed as an airplane cockpit, controls included, as some of the equipment was similar, with similar functions. For instance, if you look to the left of the throttles, you can see a large control that looks like airplanes flaps controls. It is a trim tab system to help trim the underwater wings to generate lift. Same concept as flaps - similar controls.

All this makes perfect sense when you remember that Bras D'or was constructed by that well known shipyard: Canadair.

Bras D'or was only a demonstration of this technology, future versions wouldn't of had this type of cockpit but a bridge. The ship was built at Marine Industries Limited (MIL) in Sorel, Quebec, the primary contractor being de Havilland Canada.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not quite Kevin. The Bras D'or cockpit (it was called the cockpit -not the bridge, BTW) was just about as wide as the picture you see. No wider, so much smaller than the old Mk V. It wasn't deep either, as it could just accomodate the two pilots, then only had a small jump seat behind that you could only use after closing the access hatch.

It was conceived and designed as an airplane cockpit, controls included, as some of the equipment was similar, with similar functions. For instance, if you look to the left of the throttles, you can see a large control that looks like airplanes flaps controls. It is a trim tab system to help trim the underwater wings to generate lift. Same concept as flaps - similar controls.

All this makes perfect sense when you remember that Bras D'or was constructed by that well known shipyard: Canadair.

OGBD, it often flew faster than some of its airborne brethren of the day…

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You are correct on prime contractor. I meant De Havilland, not Canadair. My bad.

I don't know where you got that production models would have been different and would have had a bridge, but it's the first time I heard that

 

[Stoker]

You are correct on prime contractor. I meant De Havilland, not Canadair. My bad.

I don't know where you got that production models would have been different and would have had a bridge, but it's the first time I heard that

Like previously mentioned this the 400 was prototype to demonstrate the technology, a larger version similar to the DREA figure would have been the next logical step. The "cockpit" or bridge as it was actually called was a solution to control the foil post but yes it did have aviation leanings. Doubtful larger versions would have continued that way as the prime contractor would of certainly changed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Correct. And the operators of the Bras D'or had to be naval aviators trained on jetplanes that also held a watchkeeping/command certificate.

A lot of our hovercraft pilots were both aviators and mariners. One was a Master Mariner and a ex-airline pilot, who also flew interesting stuff into New Guinea.

 

[Kirkhill]

You are correct on prime contractor. I meant De Havilland, not Canadair. My bad.

I don't know where you got that production models would have been different and would have had a bridge, but it's the first time I heard that

Back in the primeval era, before the Navy discovered that I was blind, I hoped to make a career of the Navy. Bras d'Or was a big part of that.

That caused me to go out and invest in Jane's Surface Skimmers 1976-77.

The DeHavilland Aircraft Company of Canada limited had a good write up on the FHE-400, which was described as a prototype that met one of its two objectives. It met the open-ocean sea-keeping objectives but its secondary objective of demonstrating ASW capability was suspended before trials could commence because of a change in Canadian defence priorities that emphasized territorial and coastal surveillance.

DeHavilland was still selling the concept of a hydrofoil. It was quite a popular platform in a number countries around the world as a high speed ferry. Copenhagen to Malmo was one run.

Anyway....

The product being sold was the DHC-MP-100.

Displacement of 104 tons
Length of 36 m
Beam of 6.4 m
"Wingspan" of 15.5 m

Crew of:
Captain
XO
3x PO
9x Ratings
Total of 14

Weights:

Crew and Supplies - 2,930 kg
Role Equipment and Fuel - 26,800 kg
Total Payload - 29,730 kg

Basic Weight - 75,740 kg
Displacement - 105,470 kg (104 Imperial tons)

Planned Performance:

Maximum Speed - 50 knots (90 km/h)
Range of 1,000 to 2,000 km on foils, and 4,000 to 5,000 km hull borne.

Three different versions were pre-engineered

A Gunboat
A Missilecraft
An ASW Patrol Craft.

The 100 tonne Gunboat was capable of mounting a Bofors 57mm forwards and a Phalanx 20mm aft.
It was stated that with the hydrofoils the craft rode like a 1000 to 1500 ton conventional ship.

The Missilecraft would keep the Phalanx aft but swap the 57mm for 8x Harpoons or Exocet which would be mounted back aft in two forward facing quad packs with the Phalanx.
It was expected to be a companion craft to the Gunboat.

The ASW would move the Phalanx forwards and mount a towed VDS aft. She would also mount two triple tube torpedo dischargers, launching port and starboard.

Crew accommodation consisted of 5 cabins forward, each with 2 bunks and 2 lockers and sharing 2 heads and 2 shower among them.
Aft of the crew was a common wardroom/galley and back aft of that were 4 cabins, one each for the CO and XO and 2 with 2 bunks for the POs.
PO's cabins had their own heads but no showers.
CO and XO shared a head and a shower.
Back aft of the officers was a large space, about 20 to 25% of the deck area designated as an Operations Room.
All of the accommodation was in the hull below the main deck.
The machinery was back aft of the Operations Room. I suspect the Operations Room was to insulate the crew from the whine of the turbine.

The craft was to be driven from a Bridge but the bridge looked more like a 707 or B52 of the era with seats for 2 drivers, a desk for the navigator and another desk for the radio operator.

So it was a cockpit but it was a Bridge.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't know exactly what that pub is you are picturing here, Stoker, but it is a rather infantile drawing out of god knows who's pervert imagination. If the "bridge" and radars are to scale, that thing is about as big as the old steamers - and no one in the world has ever built or considered building hydrofoils of such gigantic size. If, on the other hand, the harpoon missiles canisters are to scale, then the vessel as drawn is about the same size as FHE 400 herself was.

However, she was not, repeat not, a prototype to prove the concept. The actual prototype was a much smaller Bras d'Or, acquired and built in England for testing and proof of concept before the actual Bras d'Or FHE 400 was built to become the vessel serving as platform to test tactical concept of operation.

Let me quote extensively from naval historian K. R. Macpherson's book Canada's Fighting Ships, Toronto, 1975, page 70:

The Canadiann navy's preoccupation with anti-submarine warfare led in the early 1950s to a revival of interest in hydrofoils. A seventeen-ton test vessel, named Bras d'Or after the Cape Breton lakes where the HD-4 was tested, was built in Britain to Naval Research Establishment specifications. It was brought to Halifax aboard the aircraft carrier Bonaventure in 1957, and its performance resulted in a feasibility study being carried out by DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., in 1960. The results of the study were promising, and the company was awarded a contract for the ship itself - called a fast hydrofoil escort - in 1963. After some discussion it was decide to name the new vessel Bras d'Or. Commissioned in 1968, she ran her first trials in the spring of the following year.

Hull-borne, she is driven by a high-speed, 2400-BHP diesel engine turning twin variable-pitch propellers. At about twenty-three knots her foils lift her hull clear of the water. Foil-borne, she is propelled by a 30,000-SHP gas turbine engine powering twin super-cavitating screws. Trial speeds as high as sixty-three knots were recorded. An automated weapons system, combining miniaturized VDS and homing torpedoes, was designed for the ship but not installed.

Bras d'Or combines, tactically speaking, the seakeeping endurance of a ship with the high-speed capability of an aircraft. She has proved her suitability for service five hundred to a thousand miles offshore, and several of her type could be built for the cost of one DDH. Economy dictated in 1971, however, that she be laid up for a period of five years.

We all know now that she was never put back in service after that five year layup, but this book was written by an official historian of the Canadian War Museum almost contemporarily with the whole history of FHE 400's service in the RCN. You will note that no mention is made of her being a prototype for the technology, nor of any concept that bigger and more armed version where the expected end result.

 

[KevinB]

Not quite Kevin. The Bras D'or cockpit (it was called the cockpit -not the bridge, BTW) was just about as wide as the picture you see. No wider, so much smaller than the old Mk V. It wasn't deep either, as it could just accomodate the two pilots, then only had a small jump seat behind that you could only use after closing the access hatch.

Interesting.

I was more meaning the layout concept. It seems the faster you go the more data you have right in front of the ‘pilots’. And less time for ‘others’ to give input.

The Mk5 had thruster controls not a yoke or wheel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting.

I was more meaning the layout concept. It seems the faster you go the more data you have right in front of the ‘pilots’. And less time for ‘others’ to give input.

The Mk5 had thruster controls not a yoke or wheel.
View attachment 77939

When I was not doing the rescue bit, my job on patrol or tranist was lookout (3 man crew, pilot, navigator and Rescue specialist) To keep ourselves sharp, we had a bit of a challenge to see if you could spot something before the navigator did on their radar. Very satisfying to beat the electronic eye. This was the early 90's so the fancy tech of today was not available to us.

 

[NavyShooter]

OK, jumping back to the theoretical Operations Room, I see a lot more consoles than others do. *Bear in mind, this is all inference based solely on my understanding of OPS rooms, and I have no actual knowledge of how this is actually being setup.

I see that there are likely 16, 3 of these being 'inferred' from the layout of the front row.

I see SONAR on the Stbd Side (as is done now)

3 Consoles in the 'Back Row' - with 3 more consoles 'back to back' with them.

Then I see the 'middle row' which has 5 Consoles, and I am guessing that the front row has another 5 consoles - possibly 6.

At the rear is the Tech of the Watch station.

Not shown in this all the other 'important' stuff that's required - Fire Control consoles and Electronic Warfare consoles along the bottom of the screen (Port Side) as is done currently as well.

I am aware that the OPS room will need to be considerably larger to accommodate the additional sensor capability that a SPY type RADAR and the AEGIS system brings to the table, so I'm not surprised at this increase.

With a 250-300km range 3D RADAR, there are 2 Radar Trackers feeding a Track Supervisor, who passes targets to the SWC/ORO.

With a larger volume of space covered by the SPY/Phased Array RADAR systems, it makes sense that there will be many more folks required to maintain the picture.

 

[Lumber]

OK, jumping back to the theoretical Operations Room, I see a lot more consoles than others do. *Bear in mind, this is all inference based solely on my understanding of OPS rooms, and I have no actual knowledge of how this is actually being setup.

I see that there are likely 16, 3 of these being 'inferred' from the layout of the front row.

I see SONAR on the Stbd Side (as is done now)

3 Consoles in the 'Back Row' - with 3 more consoles 'back to back' with them.

Then I see the 'middle row' which has 5 Consoles, and I am guessing that the front row has another 5 consoles - possibly 6.

At the rear is the Tech of the Watch station.

Not shown in this all the other 'important' stuff that's required - Fire Control consoles and Electronic Warfare consoles along the bottom of the screen (Port Side) as is done currently as well.

I am aware that the OPS room will need to be considerably larger to accommodate the additional sensor capability that a SPY type RADAR and the AEGIS system brings to the table, so I'm not surprised at this increase.

With a 250-300km range 3D RADAR, there are 2 Radar Trackers feeding a Track Supervisor, who passes targets to the SWC/ORO.

With a larger volume of space covered by the SPY/Phased Array RADAR systems, it makes sense that there will be many more folks required to maintain the picture.

View attachment 77951

I know a few of the people who went down there, including some in the "rear" of the two forward facing rows. In the middle there are the "ORO" and "CO" participants, so I assess that those are the CO and TAO positions (apparently the RCN is changing the name, and not to the name I hoped they would go to).

So, I'm not sure what the backrow will be for. I will ask some of the guys tomorrow and see if it is unclass for me to share, but I will say that it's likely that with the way AEGIS is built, we'll need two on watch SWCs, and a whole load of "NCIOPs" and "FC" types to do what only a few do on a CPF (and in some cases, what no one does on a CPF).

 

[Underway]

I know a few of the people who went down there, including some in the "rear" of the two forward facing rows. In the middle there are the "ORO" and "CO" participants, so I assess that those are the CO and TAO positions (apparently the RCN is changing the name, and not to the name I hoped they would go to).

So, I'm not sure what the backrow will be for. I will ask some of the guys tomorrow and see if it is unclass for me to share, but I will say that it's likely that with the way AEGIS is built, we'll need two on watch SWCs, and a whole load of "NCIOPs" and "FC" types to do what only a few do on a CPF (and in some cases, what no one does on a CPF).

TAO? Stands for... (I can think of a few but I'm sure Asshat isn't the middle letter... )

The thing that we're missing I think is that there were a few different designs tried out. And I suspect that there might be more than one configuration in that setup. Example the back six might be a different setup than the middle five. Or that there might be some extra consoles to be added the next day to try a different organization.

We can't go full Aegis. Ship isn't designed for more than 210 pers. Flat out nowhere for them to sleep. And unlike the CPF there isn't just random space to cram them in (not that we'll have enough people anyways). We already took out some ideal bunking to jam in some equipment. So we're gonna have to figure out how to do it without all the extra people that Aegis wants.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

TAO? Stands for... (I can think of a few but I'm sure Asshat isn't the middle letter... )

The thing that we're missing I think is that there were a few different designs tried out. And I suspect that there might be more than one configuration in that setup. Example the back six might be a different setup than the middle five. Or that there might be some extra consoles to be added the next day to try a different organization.

We can't go full Aegis. Ship isn't designed for more than 210 pers. Flat out nowhere for them to sleep. And unlike the CPF there isn't just random space to cram them in (not that we'll have enough people anyways). We already took out some ideal bunking to jam in some equipment. So we're gonna have to figure out how to do it without all the extra people that Aegis wants.

Tactical Action Officer.

Kinda like an ORO?

USN CICs confuse me because AEGIS drives alot of staffing we don’t have.

I see us almost fully breaking from the RN style Ops Room into the USN style, with this class of ship (for better or worse…)

 

[Underway]

I am aware that the OPS room will need to be considerably larger to accommodate the additional sensor capability that a SPY type RADAR and the AEGIS system brings to the table, so I'm not surprised at this increase.

With a 250-300km range 3D RADAR, there are 2 Radar Trackers feeding a Track Supervisor, who passes targets to the SWC/ORO.

With a larger volume of space covered by the SPY/Phased Array RADAR systems, it makes sense that there will be many more folks required to maintain the picture.

There are more effectors as well, both EW and kinetic. I'm not sure about FC. Most of the missile we'll have are active. Will we even need a FC position if that's the case?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There are more effectors as well, both EW and kinetic. I'm not sure about FC. Most of the missile we'll have are active. Will we even need a FC position if that's the case?

That is a good point.

What I am most interested in is how we will create and integrate strike teams. That is a function we have never done before.