Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[MilEME09]

Save the Royal Navy once again has a good article on the Type 26, this time on engines and propulsion systems. I know we have some engineers and acoustics experts on the site, I’m sure they can read between the lines of some of the boastful claims.
It is stated in the article that the RN, RCN and RAN will have different armaments and other modifications, but the propulsion systems will not deviate between these 3 fleets. This means that when complete there will be a global supply of engine and propulsion parts for (currently) 32 ships, a very rare occurrence in numbers for non-USN ship classes.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/

Note also the £1Billion construction cost per hull of the UK Type 26.

The nice thing about that too is if need be our ships could be put in for repairs in the UK or Australia while on deployment if need be for certain common parts.

 

[Cloud Cover]

https://www.janes.com/article/89861/bae-systems-looks-to-position-hunter-class-frigate-for-new-zealand

The RNZN has removed all references and notes in the “Future Ships” content from their website concerning replacements for their frigates. There is no real public commentary explaining this, except that the defence plan of 2010 called for modernization of the two existing frigates and nothing more than that.

New Zealand does have a need for a strong maritime coastal patrol force. Whether that need includes a heavily armed combat ship is debatable. Having capabilities like that brings headaches such as whether to contribute to a coalition effort as a war fighting participant, something for which their current government has an apparent aversion both in principle and in fiscal expenditure.

 

[Spencer100]

I have thought the RNZN should pick the T-26 and have the three countries and the three yards and the three combat systems compete for the job.  I bet New Zealand would get the best deal of the three. 

 

[JMCanada]

Surprisingly it is not stated anywhere the power (MW) of the electric motors.
This is a key parameter for the cruising speed. In a drawing we can see all 4 diesel generators with EM "running" and claiming 20 knots, but the speed will depend on the power of the EMs. Moreover, all 4 DGs running together should be exceptional, since usually one of them should be kept as reserve. Therefore available power for electric propulsion would be less than 3x 3MW, 7 to 8 MW, the difference being used for all other loads in the ship. All this to say that max. cruising speed (with 3 DGs) will probably be 16-17 knots instead, and depending on the ladden of the ship (by the way, aussies mention 8000 tons, beyond 6900).

Mounting fixed propelleres instead of variable-pitch ones seems to me stingy for the cost of the vessel. I trust there is a reasonable sake behind it (maintenance costs?).

This said, the article is very illustrative, and draws many data.

 

[Spencer100]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elections/matt-gurney-remember-when-the-liberals-said-the-navy-was-a-priority-did-they-mean-the-canoe/ar-AAI7jZA?ocid=spartanntp


Politics and Ship building

 

[Underway]

Surprisingly it is not stated anywhere the power (MW) of the electric motors.
This is a key parameter for the cruising speed. In a drawing we can see all 4 diesel generators with EM "running" and claiming 20 knots, but the speed will depend on the power of the EMs. Moreover, all 4 DGs running together should be exceptional, since usually one of them should be kept as reserve. Therefore available power for electric propulsion would be less than 3x 3MW, 7 to 8 MW, the difference being used for all other loads in the ship. All this to say that max. cruising speed (with 3 DGs) will probably be 16-17 knots instead, and depending on the ladden of the ship (by the way, aussies mention 8000 tons, beyond 6900).

Mounting fixed propelleres instead of variable-pitch ones seems to me stingy for the cost of the vessel. I trust there is a reasonable sake behind it (maintenance costs?).

This said, the article is very illustrative, and draws many data.

Variable pitch are not as necessary with electric motors.  Electric motors are much more flexible with regards to change of speeds, as well as reversing direction in comparison to say a Propulsion Diesel which is best run at a single speed.  The pitch variation comes so that one can run your shaftline at a single rpm for the PDE and then increased revolutions when the turbines kick in (unless I'm remembering that backwards, I am CSE not MSE...lol).  The variable pitch allows the single rpm rate to vary your speed.

With electric motors you just change the shaft line rpm instead of the pitch to get different speeds as electric motors don't care about that sort of thing.  It also means very quick change from forward to reverse rpm. MCDV's work on this principle.

I'm not sure what this means for signature management though.  Cavitation and propellor shapes are closely linked.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can imagine that noise signature from a variable pitch would be higher than a fixed blade propeller.

 

[Baz]

I can imagine that noise signature from a variable pitch would be higher than a fixed blade propeller.

Based on my experience as a Sea King HELTAS Senso (passive acoustic sensor operator), my understanding is that that is the case.  It's hard to optimize the shape to prevent cavitation when it's orientation relative to the water flow is not constant.

 

[JMCanada]

Variable pitch are not as necessary with electric motors.  Electric motors are much more flexible with regards to change of speeds (...)

Right , but var. pitch may be interesting while operating the gas turbine for the same reason as DGs. Some other CODLAG vessels use it: german F125, FREMM or F-110. Probably brings in higher efficiency.

I understand then that one reason to install fix pitch propellers is noise.

 

[Underway]

Right , but var. pitch may be interesting while operating the gas turbine for the same reason as DGs. Some other CODLAG vessels use it: german F125, FREMM or F-110. Probably brings in higher efficiency.

I understand then that one reason to install fix pitch propellers is noise.

When digging into the weeds on other platforms we of course are missing critical information.  What rpms are the electric motors capable of for example.  If the electric motor with the props in one position can get you to say 18 knots, then the variable pitch gets you to 24 knots, then the GT kicks in to get you the rest of the way to the top speed.  New electric motors on the Type 26 might get you straight to 24 knots without needing a variable pitch, whereas the FREMM might work as the first example.

Given the added cost, maintenance, and complexity of variable pitch props if you can do it without the pitch change then why wouldn't you? 
Also given that the Type 26 as designed by the UK is a specialist ASW ship, going as far as no 90 degree piping for systems to avoid noise I wouldn't be surprised if this was a design feature to reduce that cavitation noise, and/or machinery noises from variable pitches being activated.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Great post OGBD!  I would like to add the RCN would have to acquire the Strike variant of the Mk 41 VLS to have all of the available flex. There are 3 different cell sizes for the Mk 41 VLS, (cell length and launcher weight being the difference.)

The CSC VLS could have:
8 “self defence “ cells (shortest) for 32 ESSM.
16 “Tactical”  cells: 16 SM missiles (standard length)
8 “Strike” cells; (Tomahawk, ASROC, extended length missiles etc)

What would be neat is if somewhere the design could fit in 2 Mk 57 launchers for the ESSM, leaving the main battery for other work, for example 16 Strike cells and 16 Tactical cells. Perhaps where the Sea Ceptor battery on the UK T 26  will be located mid-ships.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Could we even afford to fill that many cells?

 

[Lumber]

Could we even afford to fill that many cells?

I've been meaning to ask somebody just how many ESSM and Harpoons we have in the Canadian inventory (on ship, at the depots, and back at Boeing/Raytheon for maintenance).

Also, is there a sustainment budget? If we actually start pickling off missiles in a regional conflict somewhere <coughSOHcough>, and plan to keep sending ships to that area and keep fighting, do replacement missile need to go through the normal procurement process (god help us), or is there a "wartime ammunition contingency fund" that would automatically be activated?

 

[Cloud Cover]

There is a NATO stockpile of ESSM. As for the numbers etc, not public information

 

[Swampbuggy]

Great post OGBD!  I would like to add the RCN would have to acquire the Strike variant of the Mk 41 VLS to have all of the available flex. There are 3 different cell sizes for the Mk 41 VLS, (cell length and launcher weight being the difference.)

The CSC VLS could have:
8 “self defence “ cells (shortest) for 32 ESSM.
16 “Tactical”  cells: 16 SM missiles (standard length)
8 “Strike” cells; (Tomahawk, ASROC, extended length missiles etc)

What would be neat is if somewhere the design could fit in 2 Mk 57 launchers for the ESSM, leaving the main battery for other work, for example 16 Strike cells and 16 Tactical cells. Perhaps where the Sea Ceptor battery on the UK T 26  will be located mid-ships.

If the ExLS launcher is part of the final design, you could punch that SM loadout to 24 on the AAW variant, and have 24 CAMM to back them up.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is a NATO stockpile of ESSM. As for the numbers etc, not public information

Cost per unit I seen recently puts them in and around the 1 mil per weapon, which means you need about 45 million to load one ship.....

 

[Thumper81]

If the ExLS launcher is part of the final design, you could punch that SM loadout to 24 on the AAW variant, and have 24 CAMM to back them up.

I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.

CAMM seems likelier than NULKA, RAM, LONGBOW or JAGM, though, wouldn't you say? We have all seen models of the CSC with two midships 3 cell ExLS launchers, so it's definitely something that's on someone's mind. Also, I was under the impression that CAMM would be complimentary to ESSM, not necessarily a replacement.

 

[Underway]

I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.

CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.

Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.

 

[Kirkhill]

CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.

Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.

Conveniently that decision keeps both Brussels and Washington happy and addresses the European concern about the adoption of the ESSM system for the Halifax upgrade knocking European suppliers out of future competitions.

Not militarily significant but significant politically when managing alliances.