Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D

And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:

Everywhere I go the 280 vets always talk about the "amazing" camaraderie of the 50 pers mess deck.  "That's the problem with those frigates, no camaraderie or loyalty to your ship blah blah blah". 

The AOPS do have the capacity to have more people embarked then just 65 so I wouldn't be surprised if a 6 pers mess turned into a 3 pers mess when there are no extra riders.  Or more likely a random storage room...

I have really no issues with the HDW.  Assuming it rides ok in patrol it will do exactly what its designed for.  Maybe I'm optimistic, but given the role it has and the large amount of naval input into the design I expect it to be surprisingly useful.  Lots of space available in that ship for the future.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Everywhere I go the 280 vets always talk about the "amazing" camaraderie of the 50 pers mess deck.

I do have to say, l have sailed mostly on Tankers (90%) but have sailed 280 and CPF.  12 Mess on ATH was great, there was amazing camaraderie within the MSE world and something l did not experience elsewhere.  That being said, it's time for much better messing in future ships.  Asterix has it right.  Thumbs up to Davies.

 

[GR66]

Here we go again with Army people trying to tell us how to do ships!

... ... ... ... NO!!!!!!

Which is why, Jeopardy-style, it was posed as a question as opposed to a recommendation.

A "non-Army person" explained the reason that the GP and AAW versions of the CSC needed to be the same hull with a design that allowed us to have a "base" GP version with sensors, etc. that could be upgraded fairly easily to the "expensive" AAW version.

I simply asked the question if this could be taken to another level by going the opposite direction as well and having an even "cheaper" version.  My mistake was in specifically referencing the Kingston-Class...my intention was to ask if it made sense to add an additional 12 x Frigate-light hulls (which can be upgraded if needed) to the fleet as opposed to using them specifically take over the current MCDV role.  I'm assuming that such a ship would take on different roles which suit its capabilities. 

Despite the tone of your answer I do appreciate an educated response to my question and clearly one of the items I questioned the feasibility of (diesel only vs CODLAG) wouldn't make sense.

 

[Uzlu]

I simply asked the question if this could be taken to another level by going the opposite direction as well and having an even "cheaper" version.

This has actually been done already with the Spruance-class destroyer, the Kidd-class destroyer, and the Ticonderoga-class cruiser—a common or similar hull with different levels of equipment.  The Italians appear to be doing something similar with the Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura.  I like the idea of the Royal Canadian Navy having some large and fast offshore patrol vessels. 

Perhaps something like 4 000 tonnes full-load displacement and 25 knots.  They could be used for anti-piracy and anti-smuggling patrols.  Secondary roles may include things like disaster relief and search and rescue.  A few of them can also sometimes act as training ships.  And perhaps also build a few for the coast guard.  Irving wants a new contract after steel has been cut for the last frigate.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D

And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:

Seriously? sigh........

 

[Lumber]

What's the difference?  Size and engineering spaces sure aren't.  Sensors and Weapons.  If the Type 26 comes in with a SPY-1F radar and the Aegis system what is it?  A GP frigate or a AAW destroyer?  At what point does the hull matter.  We took four ASW destroyers in the Tribals and converted them to AAW (yes major refit however you get my point).  We are at a place now where electronics are so small and powerful.  Sensors are being designed with scalability.  Weapons are interchangeable in the VLS launchers.

No surprise there.

And that F-100/105 looks ugly AF.  Wow...

Underway,

My apologies. I didn't do enough research. I had thought based on the name and look that the Type 26 would be small of the group, more akin to a Halifax Class. However, having now done the research, looking at Length, Breadth, and displacement, it appears that the Type 26 is even larger than the DZP, F100, the FREMM and the Iver Huitfeldt.

Why are all these destroyers called Frigates?! Youd think that with the same systems and roughly the same look as an Arleigh the F100 would be a bit bigger than it is, and be considered a destroyer. Alas, naming apparently means nothing.

Lets strike fear in to the eyes of our enemies, buy some Visbys, and call them Tactical Assault Cruisers.

 

[MilEME09]

Underway,

My apologies. I didn't do enough research. I had thought based on the name and look that the Type 26 would be small of the group, more akin to a Halifax Class. However, having now done the research, looking at Length, Breadth, and displacement, it appears that the Type 26 is even larger than the DZP, F100, the FREMM and the Iver Huitfeldt.

Why are all these destroyers called Frigates?! Youd think that with the same systems and roughly the same look as an Arleigh the F100 would be a bit bigger than it is, and be considered a destroyer. Alas, naming apparently means nothing.

Lets strike fear in to the eyes of our enemies, buy some Visbys, and call them Tactical Assault Cruisers.

Frigate sounds less scary then destroyer, I'll bet $5 its about public perception

 

[Cloud Cover]

Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.

Much, much larger in all directions.

 

[Underway]

Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.

Much, much larger in all directions.

Good catch.  The Type 23 is only slightly larger than the Halifax class.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Please stop imagining that there is some sort of "naming" conspiracy here.

As usual, there is simple, historical explanation.

Frigates have been around for a long long time, from the glory days of sail ships of the line. They were the fast fourth, and fifth class vessels that scouted ahead of the fleet and reported back, or were sent on solo missions in support of commerce and exploration, or in wartime, to raid the opponent's commerce. they sort of disappeared when steamships came on the scene.

By that time, multiple types of steamships evolved and two of them became of note: the cruisers took over the role of commerce raiding, scouting and solo mission from the frigates of old, and a small high speed vessel developed to take advantage of a new weapon in the destruction of the opponent's main fleet - composed of battleships and battlecruisers: the Torpedo boat.

To counter these torpedo boats, a specific escort for the main fleet was created: the Torpedo Boat Destroyer. It became the destroyer we have known since the end of WWI. In the always different continental forces of Europe, however, the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" did not bear that name. It was called the "contre-torpilleur", i.e. the "counter torpedo boats". So the term "destroyer" was only really used by English societies.

During WWII, the "Anti-submarine vessel Whaler type" came on the scene for protection of trade. But that didn't sound very sexy, so  Winnie decided they should have a more appropriate name: the name that was used of the very small colonial defence vessels of the sail age, the sixth class ship called corvettes. Later, they grew in size and highly specialized weaponry so they needed a name to set them apart from the corvettes, even though they were not quite destroyers. Winnie had a horrible name (can't recall what it was) but was persuaded by the Canadian admiralty to reinstate instead the term frigate for such escort vessel.

In the continental European navies, this terminology stuck ever since, which is why ALL escort vessels of any type (which for us anglo nations includes "destroyers") are ALL called Frigates and have been so from WWII on. The only time Continental navies refer to some of their ships as "destroyers" is in documents they put out in English, for the benefit of their English audiences, or when they actually purchase "destroyers" from English countries (meaning the US), something they have not done of  a long time now. Otherwise, they are always and all called frigates.

All this to say, all we and the Brits are doing is catching up to generalized world practices outside the US and the other five eyes nations by calling all our escort-type ships frigates.

/PEDANT OFF

 

[Czech_pivo]

Anyone want to take bets that between today and Christmas some sort of new announcement is made about Davie winning or being able to bid for (thus winning since no one else has any capacity left), some new shipbuilding contracts - be it net new ships or rebuilding/refurbishing old ones.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Hope that is ok that I'm posting this link (and I don't get another warning).  I think that its a great article and holds many solid takeaways for what we are attempting to do.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/Opinion-carrier-commissioning-beginning-of/

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the link pivo.

So Canada has become militarily noticeable..... as a cautionary tale? 

I guess it is good to be ahead of the pack somewhere at least.

 

[MTShaw]

This is my take on the BAE/LM choice of radar:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/

 

[jollyjacktar]

Thanks for the link pivo.

So Canada has become militarily noticeable..... as a cautionary tale? 

I guess it is good to be ahead of the pack somewhere at least.

We're a good example of a bad example.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Then again, they're going to have a hard time manning their new ships.  Perhaps this will be our fate too?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/chronic-shortage-of-navy-engineers-as-mps-warn-over-shrinking-of-fleets-a3400701.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/chronic-shortage-of-navy-engineers-as-mps-warn-over-shrinking-of-fleets-a3400701.html

 

[Underway]

This is my take on the BAE/LM choice of radar:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/

That's the basic plan.  Smaller number of RMA's for the GP frigates and a larger number for the AAW versions.

 

[MTShaw]

Hi Underway,

Where did the notion of GP and AAW frigates for CSC. My impression of Single Surface Combatant is the only thing you'd have to change is the weapons in the VLS.

 

[Underway]

Hi Underway,

Where did the notion of GP and AAW frigates for CSC. My impression of Single Surface Combatant is the only thing you'd have to change is the weapons in the VLS.

Single canadian surface combatant died a long time ago.  It's child is the CSC. 

What you say might be the exact case.  It really depends on the bids and how creative the bidders are with their pitches.  The requirement is for an appropriate Air search and targeting radar for AAW.  The requirement for self defence radars is different. There is also a requirement for Command and Control variants.  If you can all those things in one platform without modification for the different variants at a good price and only swap out weapons then that bid has a good chance of winning (IMHO).

However long range air search and targeting radars are expensive.  What if you could just have the same radar and scale it down, like in the link for the SPY-6.  Then the GP frigate wouldn't need the big expensive air search radars because it doesn't do air search, it needs only a self defence capability.  That might be much cheaper.  Then maybe your bid wins instead on cost being better while still meeting the min requirements.

 

[MTShaw]

Alion reveals it's frigate design to the public.

http://mapleleafnavy.com/2017/12/08/alion-finally-announced-csc-bid/