Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

Can the AOR operate the MQ-8C or similar to protect itself and the task force?

 

[Baz]

Can the AOR operate the MQ-8C or similar to protect itself and the task force?

I'd think it could, but you'd have to add the ground control segment, plus if facing an ASW threat you"d still want an MH.

Ediited to add: but I think a better way forward would be to use the resources to build up the MH (Cyclone) crew force, rather than divert them to Fire Scout, at least for now.

 

[MTShaw]

I'd think it could, but you'd have to add the ground control segment, plus if facing an ASW threat you"d still want an MH.

Why would we use an MH when we have the Cyclone: the Helo spec't for the government.

Is there some design fault that prevents the Cyclone from working with UAV.

 

[Baz]

Why would we use an MH when we have the Cyclone: the Helo spec't for the government.

Is there some design fault that prevents the Cyclone from working with UAV.

MH means Maritme Helicopter,I was refering to the Cyclone.

No; it's not designed to directly work with a UAV, nor is any other Maritime Helicopter I'm aware of, but it is designed to be iteroparable with a broad range of Maritime assets.

 

[MTShaw]

MH means Maritme Helicopter,I was refering to the Cyclone.

I thought you meant the MH-60.

 

[Kirkhill]

On another note

MQ-8B vs MQ-8C

And the MQ-8C exercising on the LCS-8 (one of the Aussie Trimarans)

 

[Spencer100]

The MQ-8C looks like a Bell. Is the base unit made in Quebec? 

 

[Kirkhill]

From what I understand the MQ-8C is based on a Bell 407 variant.

On 3 May 2010, Northrop announced plans to fly a Bell 407 helicopter modified with autonomous controls from the MQ-8B. Named Fire-X, it was to demonstrate an unmanned cargo resupply capability to the US Navy.[2] The unmanned Fire-X completed its first flight at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona on 20 December 2010.[3] On 23 April 2012, Northrop received a $262.3 million contract from the Navy to build the newly designated MQ-8C Fire Scout; the work included two developmental aircraft and six low-rate production aircraft initially. The Navy wants 28 MQ-8Cs for naval special operations forces.[4] In March 2013, the Navy incorporated the Rolls-Royce 250-C47E engine into the MQ-8C for a 5 percent increase in "hot and high" power, 2 percent reduced fuel consumption, 8 percent increase in rated takeoff power, and better reliability.[5] The Bell 407-based MQ-8C has an endurance of 12 hours, a range of 150 nmi (170 mi; 280 km), and a payload capacity of about 318 kg (701 lb);[6] it has twice the endurance and three times the payload as the MQ-8B.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8C_Fire_Scout

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I wonder how they manage the issue of skids and deck resonance?

 

[Baz]

I wonder how they manage the issue of skids and deck resonance?

We used to do it as well, when VU-10 had Twin Hueys (before 412s replaced them).

I only know one person I could ask.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We used to do it as well, when VU-10 had Twin Hueys (before 412s replaced them).

I only know one person I could ask.

I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?

 

[Baz]

I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?

Go in to the archives and pull out a SHOPs from the early '90s!  You have the power...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You would think so....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.

Much, much larger in all directions.

Found another interesting graphic today concerning modern warship design size and scaling. The Type 26 sitting alongside HMS Belfast, courtesy of savetheroyalnavy.org 

"This is a mock up of how the future Type 26 Frigate, HMS Belfast might look alongside the museum ship HMS Belfast (1938). It demonstrates how classification of warships has changed. The Type 26 frigate of c2028 is 70% WWII Cruiser size. (The Type 26 actually has a broader beam than the cruiser). A typical frigate of WWII displaced just 1,400 tons."

HMS Belfast: Edinburgh Configuration 13 386+ tons full load.
Type 26 GCS (UK GP variant): 8000+ ton full load 

Two Type 26 tied alongside each other = ~ 140 feet
Two Halifax tied alongside each other= ~ 108 feet


   

 

[Good2Golf]

I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?

VU-32?  ???

Hypothetically, use a coarse hawser net on the deck.

Hypothetically, +/- 8 degrees list.  Pitch "unrestricted"

Hypothetically.

 

[Baz]

VU-32?  ???

Hypothetically, use a coarse hawser net on the deck.

Hypothetically, +/- 8 degrees list.  Pitch "unrestricted"

Hypothetically.

Of course you are right.  I would say I was confusing it with VX-10, the old RCN Experimental Sqn, but I think I was just being stupid!

 

[Uzlu]

Why build them in Canada?  We could be saving many billions of dollars if we simply buy them overseas.  Well, here is an argument in favour of building them in the great white north.

Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years.

This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?

Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?

But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.

Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.

But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP.  It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.

But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.

To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.

Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/forbes-heres-why-we-cant-buy-our-warships-from-foreign-companies

 

[Good2Golf]

Of course you are right.  I would say I was confusing it with VX-10, the old RCN Experimental Sqn, but I think I was just being stupid!

No harm no foul, Baz.  As a green guy, I only knew the number because of the transfer paperwork when we received their machines after their unit closed.

All good!

Cheers,
G2G

 

[Czech_pivo]

Wonder if this also played into why they didn't bother throwing their hat into the ring...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-warship-that-isnt-fit-for-sea-1515753000

full access for those without WSJ subscription
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/german-navys-new-stateoftheart-warship-sails-into-tech-trouble/news-story/3789e66048c33035585607e65cfccb26

 

[Cloud Cover]

Odd to see a ship described as "weighing 7,000,000 kilograms." More impressive, I guess.