Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Furniture]

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?

Do you want a Tomozuru incident? Because that's how you get a Tormozuru incident...

Japanese torpedo boat Tomozuru - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Do you want a Tomozuru incident? Because that's how you get a Tormozuru incident...

Japanese torpedo boat Tomozuru - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I might think of reballasting before I let that happen.

 

[YZT580]

Do you want a Tomozuru incident? Because that's how you get a Tormozuru incident...

Japanese torpedo boat Tomozuru - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was thinking a little closer to home: the Hamilton and Scourge

 

[Furniture]

I might think of reballasting before I let that happen.

Ballast works wonders, but it only goes so far. If the hull isn't designed for that much weight that high, it will never really work.

Also remember that ballast makes the boat slower and sit lower, meaning less freeboard for heavy weather.

Rather than try to make CSCs something they aren't, it would be better to design a companion system for them that can be the "bomb truck", and maybe build two to test the concept.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ballast works wonders, but it only goes so far. If the hull isn't designed for that much weight that high, it will never really work.

Also remember that ballast makes the boat slower and sit lower, meaning less freeboard for heavy weather.

Rather than try to make CSCs something they aren't, it would be better to design a companion system for them that can be the "bomb truck", and maybe build two to test the concept.

Can we start with the same hull, power plant and management systems?

 

[Furniture]

Can we start with the same hull, power plant and management systems?

Sure, but this is where we reverse roles and I argue that a USV arsenal ship or two makes more sense than making the CSC less useful for 99.9% of what it will do.

In a total war, a real warship like the CSC augmented with USV arsenal ships makes a lot of sense. For anything short of total war, the CSC as ordered likely makes the most sense. It's capable of fighting, but isn't so specialized that it's useless for every other mission.

To put it in land terms, the current CSC plan is like an IFV/APC, what you are thinking of is more of a SPG. Both have a useful roll to fill, but most of the time the IFV/APC is the better tool for the job.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure, but this is where we reverse roles and I argue that a USV arsenal ship or two makes more sense than making the CSC less useful for 99.9% of what it will do.

In a total war, a real warship like the CSC augmented with USV arsenal ships makes a lot of sense. For anything short of total war, the CSC as ordered likely makes the most sense. It's capable of fighting, but isn't so specialized that it's useless for every other mission.

To put it in land terms, the current CSC plan is like an IFV/APC, what you are thinking of is more of a SPG. Both have a useful roll to fill, but most of the time the IFV/APC is the better tool for the job.

And this is where I stop running in circles.

There are a lot of good solutions out there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

^^
No Hull Number yet.

284 through to 298 perchance ?

 

[KevinB]

Ballast works wonders, but it only goes so far. If the hull isn't designed for that much weight that high, it will never really work.

Also remember that ballast makes the boat slower and sit lower, meaning less freeboard for heavy weather.

Rather than try to make CSCs something they aren't, it would be better to design a companion system for them that can be the "bomb truck", and maybe build two to test the concept.

Looking at the HMS Glasgow in the water, one can clearly drop the Mission bay and reduce the height of that area to the same as the front area where the Strike VLS are currently- then it offers over 2x the area of the front Strike bay, so an additional 64 Strike VLS cells, potentially another 76.

So you could theoretically have a 96+ cell ship for some flights - which is a fairly significant jump in missiles.

A true AAW Cruiser as it were.

 

[Cloud Cover]

284 through to 298 perchance ?

Are they classifying them as Destroyers? If so, those serials make good sense!

 

[Stoker]

Looking at the HMS Glasgow in the water, one can clearly drop the Mission bay and reduce the height of that area to the same as the front area where the Strike VLS are currently- then it offers over 2x the area of the front Strike bay, so an additional 64 Strike VLS cells, potentially another 76.

So you could theoretically have a 96+ cell ship for some flights - which is a fairly significant jump in missiles.

A true AAW Cruiser as it were.

You can put all the missiles you like on the type 26, won't do you any good if it can only go 20 knots due to excessive tonnage.

 

[Maxman1]

New information on the Type 83 Destroyer looks like it will have 128 Mk 41 cells and be around 10,000 tons.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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

 

[KevinB]

You can put all the missiles you like on the type 26, won't do you any good if it can only go 20 knots due to excessive tonnage.

Weight allocations for the MMB and reductions from trimming the super structure would make it a near wash - with the COG actually being lowered.

 

[Lumber]

Sure, but this is where we reverse roles and I argue that a USV arsenal ship or two makes more sense than making the CSC less useful for 99.9% of what it will do.

In a total war, a real warship like the CSC augmented with USV arsenal ships makes a lot of sense. For anything short of total war, the CSC as ordered likely makes the most sense. It's capable of fighting, but isn't so specialized that it's useless for every other mission.

To put it in land terms, the current CSC plan is like an IFV/APC, what you are thinking of is more of a SPG. Both have a useful roll to fill, but most of the time the IFV/APC is the better tool for the job.

Or better yet why not unmanned arsenal submarines! With the missile ranges we have today, they forward deploy and sit on the bottom of the ocean on a shallow patch near the area of operations. Need a missile? Fwooooooshhere did that come from?!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Are they classifying them as Destroyers? If so, those serials make good sense!

I don't know what they are classified as, yet. However, with AEGIS radars and strike length VLS and the missile load being described as everything from ESSMs to Tomahawks and everything in between, they seem to fit both the size and general purpose description you would expect from a destroyer. The French Navy FREDA variant of their FREMM frigate is closer to what the CSC's will and can do. The French put a "D" in those FREDA's identifiers, meaning they regard them as destroyers.

Looking at the HMS Glasgow in the water, one can clearly drop the Mission bay and reduce the height of that area to the same as the front area where the Strike VLS are currently- then it offers over 2x the area of the front Strike bay, so an additional 64 Strike VLS cells, potentially another 76.

If you do that with strike length VLS, you will be encroaching into valuable work/living/office/storage space below the current mission bay.

Or better yet why not unmanned arsenal submarines! With the missile ranges we have today, they forward deploy and sit on the bottom of the ocean on a shallow patch near the area of operations. Need a missile? Fwooooooshhere did that come from?!

I like that idea, but to be useful it requires solving the old problem of sending enough information/orders/data to a submerged object. Also, launching from below the water requires launch systems that are a little more complicated than systems for surface launch. You could have such an unmanned sub come to the surface just to launch, then go back down. Either way, once you launch, you have revealed your position.

 

[Stoker]

Weight allocations for the MMB and reductions from trimming the super structure would make it a near wash - with the COG actually being lowered.

Now you are cutting capabilities and changing the ships characteristics can cause all sorts of unintended consequences. Its not a good idea if your ship can't trim correctly. It may seem easy to you but I'm pretty you are not a Nav Arc. Best you stay in your own lanes.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

Plan to increase the number of sailors wanted? Or decrease the number of sailors needed?

 

[Kirkhill]

Re the Payload Delivery System.

Iran Fires Ballistic Missile From A Shipping Container At Sea

Fired from a sea base-like vessel, Iran's launching of ballistic missiles via shipping containers could have wide-ranging implications.

www.twz.com

Every ship with a container on board has now become a long range threat.

 

[Kirkhill]

And any ship with a container on it can also have its own robust point defence system

Halcon and Rheinmetall Air Defence team up for the Skynex - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini Halcon, the company part of the EDGE group, specialised in guided weapons, unveiled at IDEX its SkyKnight

www.edrmagazine.eu

Skyknight (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org