Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

They are a political decision of the Harper government imposed on the RCN for no other reason than Harper liked the Arctic.

Because the RCN was quite happy to ignore the arctic regardless of the threat level and did not see it as part of Canada. To be fair many other government departments did not either.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not quite true. When asked about securing the Arctic, the RCN's answer was : "To do it, get us the 8 to 10 nuclear attack boats from Mulroney's White paper. that's what is needed".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not quite true. When asked about securing the Arctic, the RCN's answer was : "To do it, get us the 8 to 10 nuclear attack boats from Mulroney's White paper. that's what is needed".

My understanding was that they were intended more to act as escorts and hunter-killers in the Atlantic, basically replacing the surface fleet completely?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I've heard conflicting reports of them potentially ordering more Hunters, nobody knows until the actual review is released on the 19th.



Surface fleet review carries Hunter Class changes in February release, say industry insiders

It is now 6 instead of 9, and Kirkhill will now be able to play with Arsenal Ship designs.
Noteworthy the RAN will nearly double the number of overall surface ships.

Nine Tier 1 ships, comprising three Hobart class destroyers and six Hunter class frigates, to provide essential advanced air defence, long-range strike, presence and undersea warfare.
• Proceed with SEA 5000 Phase 1 Hunter Class Frigate project and negotiate terms to acquire one batch of six Hunter class frigates of the current design.

And ...

• Acquire six Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs) with 32 Vertical Launching System cells, providing enhanced lethality through additional multi-domain strike capacity and directly increasing survivability, lethality and endurance. This investment will increase distributed fleet lethality with a lower cost and crewing impact. These vessels will rely on Aegis Baseline 9 or later, which is the combat system planned to be operated by the Hunter class frigates from delivery, and by the Hobart class destroyers post-upgrade.

And ...

• The reduction in Tier 1 surface combatants from 12 to nine necessitates the acceleration of the replacement Destroyer to ensure continuous naval shipbuilding at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia.

And...

• At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the ability to:
  
  • operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
  • provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array
    sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
  • provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems
  • provide maritime and land strike
  • provide force protection.

And ...

Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new general purpose frigate:
Meko A-200
Mogami 30FFM
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III
Navantia ALFA3000

More:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Enhanced_Lethality_Surface_Combatant_Fleet_web.pdf

The writing is on the wall for the fate of the CSC....Arguably, the current proposed design of the CSC could fit the requirements of the Australian Tier 2 ships

 

[Kirkhill]

It is now 6 instead of 9, and Kirkhill will now be able to play with Arsenal Ship designs.

Hey. I can't be wrong all the time!

 

[Kirkhill]

It is now 6 instead of 9, and Kirkhill will now be able to play with Arsenal Ship designs.

I posted some info about the Japanese Mogumi GP frigate and Austal's offerings on the Aussie Procurement thread.

Double post on the Austal stuff here.

The Aussies seem to be looking at autonomous ships and running them with minimal crews. Three leading platforms - The JHSV/EPF Spearhead logistics catamaran that they have successfully tested with Zero Crew (USNS Apalachicola), USNS Vanguard, a large 100m OSV just launched in Alabama, and the Aussie Evolved Cape Class Patrol Boat

Autonomous Ships

ACCELERATING A SMART PATH TO AUTONOMOUS CAPABILITY Austal is working closely with the United States Navy and Royal Australian Navy to integrate and enhance - not replace – the mission capability of crewed platforms. Working together with government and Industry, we will transform, and improve...

www.austal.com

The Spearhead EPF seems to being considered for both logistics and as a launch platform.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meko A-200 complement of <120
Mogami 30FFM complement of <90
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III complement of 140
Navantia ALFA3000 complement of <90

 

[suffolkowner]

It is now 6 instead of 9, and Kirkhill will now be able to play with Arsenal Ship designs.
Noteworthy the RAN will nearly double the number of overall surface ships.

Nine Tier 1 ships, comprising three Hobart class destroyers and six Hunter class frigates, to provide essential advanced air defence, long-range strike, presence and undersea warfare.
• Proceed with SEA 5000 Phase 1 Hunter Class Frigate project and negotiate terms to acquire one batch of six Hunter class frigates of the current design.

And ...

• Acquire six Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs) with 32 Vertical Launching System cells, providing enhanced lethality through additional multi-domain strike capacity and directly increasing survivability, lethality and endurance. This investment will increase distributed fleet lethality with a lower cost and crewing impact. These vessels will rely on Aegis Baseline 9 or later, which is the combat system planned to be operated by the Hunter class frigates from delivery, and by the Hobart class destroyers post-upgrade.

And ...

• The reduction in Tier 1 surface combatants from 12 to nine necessitates the acceleration of the replacement Destroyer to ensure continuous naval shipbuilding at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia.

And...

• At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the ability to:
  
  • operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
  • provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array
    sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
  • provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems
  • provide maritime and land strike
  • provide force protection.

And ...

Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new general purpose frigate:
Meko A-200
Mogami 30FFM
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III
Navantia ALFA3000

More:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Enhanced_Lethality_Surface_Combatant_Fleet_web.pdf

The writing is on the wall for the fate of the CSC....Arguably, the current proposed design of the CSC could fit the requirements of the Australian Tier 2 ships

the Aussies will change their minds 3 more times before we will get our first CSC

 

[Rainbow1910]

And...

• At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the ability to:
  
  • operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
  • provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array
    sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
  • provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems
  • provide maritime and land strike
  • provide force protection.

And ...

Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new general purpose frigate:
Meko A-200
Mogami 30FFM
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III
Navantia ALFA3000

The writing is on the wall for the fate of the CSC....Arguably, the current proposed design of the CSC could fit the requirements of the Australian Tier 2 ships

All of those "Tier 2" type vessels are smaller frigates by size and displacement with a weapons loadout more towards 16 Mark 41 VLS at maximum, still not comparable with something like CSC. Things like maritime and land strike are vague and can be done by something like NSM at low cost/weight requirements. These vessels actual ASW capability will be more limited than some large proper ASW combatant like CSC.

What might work for Australia is not what Canada should be looking at. I will point out that all of these warship classes being procured at once will be fun for Australian training, infrastructure and logistics to deal with compared to the largely homogenous CSC. It will be annoying though now that the CSC haters will have ammunition to constantly winge in the media about but oh well.

 

[Lumber]

Which is why I see the CSC and AOPS as they are being well suited for the 99% of the time we're not at war. No need to frankenstein them into heavy cruisers.

At the same time however I think it's important to accept the fact that the chance of open conflict between major powers is increasingly likely given the political trajectories we're seeing around the globe. It would be stupid of us not to prepare for that possibility.

That's where I see the utility of unmanned/minimally manned platforms to supplement our CSC's (as well as our subs and MPAs) with additional war fighting capability - be that an expanded sensor web or additional fire power in the form of arsenal ships.

This is why I'm also in favour of up-gunning the MCDV replacements somewhat considering the potential for conflict. IF war comes than 15 combatant hulls isn't going to be enough and the loss of just a couple would seriously cripple our ability to make any significant contribution.

This is where I think tough choices will have to be made that will probably please neither side of the MCDV vs Corvette argument. The existing MCDV's are quite well suited for their roles in peacetime...and can do it cheaply with a minimal personnel burden but they have no role in combat operations (beyond their designed mine counter-measures role). Go too far down the Corvette path and you get a vessel that's still not a terribly combat effective platform (compared to a CSC), has a difficult to fulfill personnel burden and also loses most the benefits that a small, inexpensive to operate vessel.

Again, this misses the urgency of the matter.

There is no time for arsenal ships.

There is no time for upgunned MCDVs or corvettes.

The only thing we are going to get in any useful timeline is what's already on the table, and that's CSC, and for the future war that's coming, we need them to have more vls cells.

 

[Cloud Cover]

All of those "Tier 2" type vessels are smaller frigates by size and displacement with a weapons loadout more towards 16 Mark 41 VLS at maximum, still not comparable with something like CSC. Things like maritime and land strike are vague and can be done by something like NSM at low cost/weight requirements. These vessels actual ASW capability will be more limited than some large proper ASW combatant like CSC.

What might work for Australia is not what Canada should be looking at. I will point out that all of these warship classes being procured at once will be fun for Australian training, infrastructure and logistics to deal with compared to the largely homogenous CSC. It will be annoying though now that the CSC haters will have ammunition to constantly winge in the media about but oh well.

In the table at the back of the document they specify Tomahawk, with the Albanese government agreeing to that.
They also spec the Meko A 200, which has a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS but I think these are not strike length.

“The MEKO A-200 frigate measures 121m in length and accommodates up to 120 crew members. Its armament includes a 127mm or 76mm main gun, a pair of 30mm-40mm secondary guns, two 12.7-20mm cannons, eight surface-to-surface missiles, 32 surface-to-air missiles, two anti-submarine (ASW) torpedo tubes, and sea mines.

The ship can house two 5t helicopters, two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and an all-weather capable boat. It is outfitted with various sonars, trackers, radars and navigation systems, as well as two torpedo decoy launchers and two EM/IR decoy launchers for countermeasures.”

 

[Kirkhill]

Again, this misses the urgency of the matter.

There is no time for arsenal ships.

There is no time for upgunned MCDVs or corvettes.

The only thing we are going to get in any useful timeline is what's already on the table, and that's CSC, and for the future war that's coming, we need them to have more vls cells.

You want to pick up the pace then focus on the VLS requirement and scale back on the ASW requirement. No?

 

[Kirkhill]

In the table at the back of the document they specify Tomahawk, with the Albanese government agreeing to that.

The Aussie's own missile factory is geared to producing Tomahawks as well as NSMs, GMRLS's and every other missile in the US arsenal.

 

[Rainbow1910]

In the table at the back of the document they specify Tomahawk, with the Albanese government agreeing to that.

That'll be cutting even further into the likely 16 VLS arrangement there, not especially impressive.

 

[Lumber]

Haphazardly slapping weapons and sensors onto an OPV does not make a proper combatant yet a proper combatant is very poor OPV.

What if it's not "haphazardly" done? Lots of "OPVs" out there with missiles.

 

[Cloud Cover]

On the matter of uncrewed arsenal type ships, the RCN always has to travel a long way and that means underway refuelling. I don’t see how a ship without a crew can be refueled without adding a whole lot of pain and risk to the evolution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The aussies can get to the fight via Island hopping. something Canada can't do.

 

[Kirkhill]

That'll be cutting even further into the likely 16 VLS arrangement there, not especially impressive.

6x 32 on the Autonomous Ships = 192
11x 16 on the GP Frigates = 176
6x 32 on the Hunters = 192
3x 48 on the Hobarts = 144

Grand Total of 704 cells at sea or 2816 ESSMs.

15x 24 on the CSC = 360 cells at sea or 1440 ESSMs

I gather the Aussies are planning on buying Autonomous Ships but crewing them. The USN has been manning their Ghost Fleet Large USVs with 6 watchkeepers.

 

[Rainbow1910]

On the matter of uncrewed arsenal type ships, the RCN always has to travel a long way and that means underway refuelling. I don’t see how a ship without a crew can be refueled without adding a whole lot of pain and risk to the evolution.

Optionally crewed is a more apt term, they can be crewed by a smaller compliment and accompany a larger vessel. Crews can be taken off and the ship ran autonomously in a wartime situation where extreme danger is expected.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the matter of uncrewed arsenal type ships, the RCN always has to travel a long way and that means underway refuelling. I don’t see how a ship without a crew can be refueled without adding a whole lot of pain and risk to the evolution.

The USN has already transited Autonomous OSVs from Alabama to Sydney by way of California, Hawaii and a RimPac exercise.

These are blue water transits.