Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Kirkhill]

If I have a conventional tank with four crew and I start adding robot tanks to the mix should I put all four tankers in one command tank and add three robot tanks for them to control remotel? Or should I make all four robot tanks and add one tanker to each of the robot tanks to be able to control the tanks when comms fail?


Similar question for the navy. If the navy needs missiles in the air then do you put 200 sailors into one hull and add three robot arsenal ships with the requisite number of missiles or do you spread the 200 sailors around the four automated hulls and man each of them with a crew of 50?

The group of 4 hulls then becomes your minimum wartime force element.

 

[calculus]

I am very skeptical that chopping up the Hunter class and replacing it with some lesser frigate design is worthwhile overall. In order to remain relevant as a combatant in Australia's Pacific threat environment, whatever Arrowhead 140 (or other frigate) variant is going to have to be outfitted with a capable array of sensors, weapons and other equipment where I don't think there will be worthwhile cost savings over just building the original Hunter class figures. You get an overall less capable design regardless of what you pick, you cut the legs out from another shipbuilding program and would have to spin up either another yard or retool the existing yard to build these ships after the Hunters are built. I also have my doubts about the viability of operating a properly capable frigate design at only around 100 men, regardless of what the shiny brochure of the Type 31 would like to tell you.

Sounds like a fools errand to me, people are just going to take one big scary program figure and cut in into two programs that will cost comparatively similar or even more than the current program. Not even getting around to the logistical burden of operating yet another design in the fleet and the modifications required by Australia in all likelihood to make the design suitable for them. Stay the course with the Hunters.

I couldn't agree more. My concern is this nonsense will take hold with our gang.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I couldn't agree more. My concern is this nonsense will take hold with our gang.

I hope the egg heads in Ottawa do not capitulate like that and give a win to Alan Williams by adopting a second design. But it is rather more likely they will cut hull numbers rather than have two designs in the workshop.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Some additional angles of the latest CSC render I've seen, they seem to be effectively the same render I posted about in August of 2023. As per always take these renders with a grain of salt as things definitely change but as we come closer and closer to design work wrapping up prior to construction beginning, I thought it was relevant to share these.

 

[FSTO]

^^
No Hull Number yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wasn't there an original plan to split the build on the CSC into an AAW variant and a GP variant?

It was originally anticipated that two CSC ship variants would have been acquired to replace the specific capabilities of the Iroquois-class destroyers and Halifax-class frigates. As originally intended, both variants would have the necessary combat capabilities to operate in air, surface and subsurface threat environments. A small number of ships (up to five) would have additionally incorporated the sensors, guided weapons and command and fire control facilities necessary to perform large-area air defence, along with having the facilities to be task force flagships. The remaining ships would have replaced the capabilities provided by the current fleet of Halifax-class frigates as a more general purpose/antisubmarine warfare variant.[32] However, only one variant will be acquired due to cost effectiveness, crew training efficiencies, and being better suited to the navy's operational needs.[34]

River-class destroyer (2030s) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not go back to 15 hulls with 5 large crew AAW ships and 10 small crew hulls suitable for both patrolling and for carrying enhanced loads of missiles?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Wasn't there an original plan to split the build on the CSC into an AAW variant and a GP variant?

River-class destroyer (2030s) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not go back to 15 hulls with 5 large crew AAW ships and 10 small crew hulls suitable for both patrolling and for carrying enhanced loads of missiles?

Because of the last sentence of the section you quoted. If you only have a smaller number of AAW combatants, you run into the issue that most of the time when you might need 1 or 2 of those vessels, most of the class is out for repairs, maintenance, etc. By making the class homogenous, you can slot any CSC out into any role because all of the ships are basically along the same specification lines. There is no availability issues besides what exists with the overall fleet. Using a common design, you also save much with regards to crew training, logistics and infrastructure while getting more and better capable ships across the board.

There is also the question of actually building two separate designs or even variants. You would need to either retool the yard before/after the AAW build to produce a different design or you take the work from that yard and further split it between another yard. That is inefficient in effort, use of personnel, time and funding regarding the former point and directly goes against the goals of the National Shipbuilding Strategy as keeping Canada's main yards busy and operating for the latter point.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I get that two variants is inefficient, but this whole project seems about as inefficient as could possibly be.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Wasn't there an original plan to split the build on the CSC into an AAW variant and a GP variant?

River-class destroyer (2030s) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not go back to 15 hulls with 5 large crew AAW ships and 10 small crew hulls suitable for both patrolling and for carrying enhanced loads of missiles?

Aside from the massive configuration management, crew familiarization and maintenance issues? It would be a new massive project.

Changing the variant may be as simple though as changing the VLS loadout and/or what is in the mission bay, as well as embarked specialists.

 

[Kirkhill]

Because of the last sentence of the section you quoted. If you only have a smaller number of AAW combatants, you run into the issue that most of the time when you might need 1 or 2 of those vessels, most of the class is out for repairs, maintenance, etc. By making the class homogenous, you can slot any CSC out into any role because all of the ships are basically along the same specification lines. There is no availability issues besides what exists with the overall fleet. Using a common design, you also save much with regards to crew training, logistics and infrastructure while getting more and better capable ships across the board.

There is also the question of actually building two separate designs or even variants. You would need to either retool the yard before/after the AAW build to produce a different design or you take the work from that yard and further split it between another yard. That is inefficient in effort, use of personnel, time and funding regarding the former point and directly goes against the goals of the National Shipbuilding Strategy as keeping Canada's main yards busy and operating for the latter point.

I get that there are advantages. But there appear to be costs associated with delivering those advantages.

I go back to the Type 31 antecedents Huitfeldt and Absalon. The Absalon was explicitly a derated version of the later Huitfeldt hull. Do the same for the Type 26 only instead of the enclosed Mission Bay go with a more open structure that would emphasise containerized loads for missiles.

 

[Thumper81]

Some additional angles of the latest CSC render I've seen, they seem to be effectively the same render I posted about in August of 2023. As per always take these renders with a grain of salt as things definitely change but as we come closer and closer to design work wrapping up prior to construction beginning, I thought it was relevant to share these.

View attachment 83156

View attachment 83157

View attachment 83158

I noticed they got rid of the X-Band illuminators. I saw they purchased SM-2 Block IIIC, which are active seekers, but can use the semi-active as a backup. This is the same as ESSM Block II. I know the uplink is provided by the SPY-7. Looks like fire-control and radar are going to be merged.

 

[Furniture]

I get that two variants is inefficient, but this whole project seems about as inefficient as could possibly be.

Building warships is, and always has been expensive.

 

[GR66]

It's not like Canada is spending 5% of GDP on Defence and desperately need to make cuts or staring down the barrel of a potentially bankrupting nuclear submarine purchase.

How about we take the money required to meet our 2% of GDP Defence spending commitment and do whatever it takes to fix our personnel situation so we have enough people to crew all planned 15 CSCs rather than replacing them with a lesser platform.

 

[YZT580]

I hope the egg heads in Ottawa do not capitulate like that and give a win to Alan Williams by adopting a second design. But it is rather more likely they will cut hull numbers rather than have two designs in the workshop.

Let's play their game. The number needed is 15. With the time frames involved, by the time you get hull 15 delivered there will have been so many changes made that you will be dealing with an entirely new ship. So drop the number required to 6. The drop in dollars will be so significant that it will vanish off the media's radar. As soon as the contract is signed assign your design team to tranche 2; an additional 6 ships. You already have your contractor in place so you can start with the identified changes needed on the original design and go from there. Repeat the process every 8 to 10 years.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Let's play their game. The number needed is 15. With the time frames involved, by the time you get hull 15 delivered there will have been so many changes made that you will be dealing with an entirely new ship. So drop the number required to 6. The drop in dollars will be so significant that it will vanish off the media's radar. As soon as the contract is signed assign your design team to tranche 2; an additional 6 ships. You already have your contractor in place so you can start with the identified changes needed on the original design and go from there. Repeat the process every 8 to 10 years.

That's not how GoC contracts or TBS approval works at all unfortunately.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I noticed they got rid of the X-Band illuminators. I saw they purchased SM-2 Block IIIC, which are active seekers, but can use the semi-active as a backup. This is the same as ESSM Block II. I know the uplink is provided by the SPY-7. Looks like fire-control and radar are going to be merged.

CAMM is active seeker guided as well, so it seems the entire setup of the missile battery is good to go without the X-Band illuminators. Likely a boon for weight savings on the design.

I get that there are advantages. But there appear to be costs associated with delivering those advantages.

I go back to the Type 31 antecedents Huitfeldt and Absalon. The Absalon was explicitly a derated version of the later Huitfeldt hull. Do the same for the Type 26 only instead of the enclosed Mission Bay go with a more open structure that would emphasise containerized loads for missiles.

The Navy and GoC has accepted those costs many, many years ago when they pivoted away from two variants into one. Topshee has spoken about a flight system for the CSC where later vessels can potentially have increased capability but its to be seen if this will mean something substantial enough to classify as a variant. I have my doubts they will remove the mission bay considering the sheer utility it provides.

 

[Good2Golf]

CAMM is active seeker guided as well, so it seems the entire setup of the missile battery is good to go without the X-Band illuminators. Likely a boon for weight savings on the design.

…and some benefit to reducing electronic signature as an Electronic Protection (EP) measure.

 

[Kirkhill]

Adding firepower to the Type 26 Frigate | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

This proposes to put strike length cells where the Multi Mission Bay exists.

What happens if you were to simply put Mk 70 Payload Delivery System TEU-40s on the roofs of the Mission Bay and the Hangar? When and if required?

US Navy and Army's MK 70 Payload Delivery Systems Stretch Their Wings - Naval News

Last week we witnessed activity showing the US Navy and Army were both deploying their variants of Lockheed Martin MK 70 PDS around the globe

www.navalnews.com

Or, for that matter, if the situation warrants, on the flight deck.

You can get 8x TEU-40 abreast atop the mission bay. 8x 4 cells apiece is an additional 32 cells without impacting the mission bay. Something similar for the hangar roof?

 

[Navy_Pete]

How about a credible plan and focus on actually crewing the current and future fleet, and spend money on that?

 

[Thumper81]

CAMM is active seeker guided as well, so it seems the entire setup of the missile battery is good to go without the X-Band illuminators. Likely a boon for weight savings on the design.


The Navy and GoC has accepted those costs many, many years ago when they pivoted away from two variants into one. Topshee has spoken about a flight system for the CSC where later vessels can potentially have increased capability but its to be seen if this will mean something substantial enough to classify as a variant. I have my doubts they will remove the mission bay considering the sheer utility it provides.

With CAMM, the seeker goes active immediately after launch as it's shorter range system. With ESSM and Standard, uplink is the way to go. You only need terminal guidance near the end with illuminators (on semi-active versions). Even with active versions, the missile will only go pitbull at the last few moments. I know CAMM uses uplink as well.