Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

I am going to call you on that, but the beer/drinks will definitely be on me.  8)

Yes they will... lol  :cheers:

I've recently been able to see an excellent progress presentation of the CSC.  All I can say is "wow".  New career goal.  Sail on that ship.  The attention to detail is frankly astounding.  The effort to future proof this thing is evident in every system.  I think when it hits the water it will be the world's most advanced frigate, no joke.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And here comes the media, spinning the evil SPY7 all sorts of different ways.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-radar-lockheed-martin-1.5822606

Edit: if you want to keep your sanity do not look at the comments section on that article.

 

[MarkOttawa]

And here comes the media, spinning the evil SPY7 all sorts of different ways.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-radar-lockheed-martin-1.5822606

Edit: if you want to keep your sanity do not look at the comments section on that article.

It is disgraceful how most of our media, including Murray Brewster who could do much better, consistently spin their defence reporting to make matters politically contentious--rather than cover the substance involved. Doubtless that is what editors want as they assume (probably rightly) that any other approach will not attract viewers/readers/clickers.

Too sad and childish.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not in much of a position to fact check the article.

 

[suffolkowner]

I would have thought the SPY-7 was an evolutionary development of the previous radars and fairly low risk

 

[MarkOttawa]

I would have thought the SPY-7 was an evolutionary development of the previous radars and fairly low risk

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C156

But he is Murray Brewster and you are not. Facts...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well here is a fact he can't change. When these ships are built, Canada is likely to be the worlds second most numerous operator of AEGIS systems, after the United States (according LM website: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/features/why-spy-7-is-the-world-s-most-versatile-radar.html

More on AEGIS and SPY 7: https://youtu.be/hb4yP8dKJ78

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If the footprint of that gun took away from having the missiles in the first place or took away topside space for ECM or other electronics (Which a Millennium Gun definitely will on the CSC)... yes.  It would be very unwise IMHO.

So assuming something more advanced than the linked system becomes common place within the next ten years, how would you propose the CSC defend itself in contested littoral waters?  A laser is going to take up a similar foot print to the Millennium Gun would it not?  In that context would it not make sense to dedicate those spaces now (as opposed to solely relying on CAMM) and then integrate the best system available as the ships are being constructed?  If at that time the best option is a Millennium Gun or Bofors 40mm/57mm, you go with that.  If laser technology has advanced and is stable, reliable and effective, you go with that.  My point is that CAMM in isolation as the sole CIWS system appears to create an opportunity for an assymetric mismatch for an opponent with a relatively low cost microdrone system....and if we allow that on our brand new multibillion dollar frigate, we have a big problem.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37062/china-conducts-test-of-massive-suicide-drone-swarm-launched-from-a-box-on-a-truck

 

[Cloud Cover]

If only Krakens could fly, then we could release them unto the drones.

 

[Underway]

So assuming something more advanced than the linked system becomes common place within the next ten years, how would you propose the CSC defend itself in contested littoral waters?  A laser is going to take up a similar foot print to the Millennium Gun would it not?  In that context would it not make sense to dedicate those spaces now (as opposed to solely relying on CAMM) and then integrate the best system available as the ships are being constructed?  If at that time the best option is a Millennium Gun or Bofors 40mm/57mm, you go with that.  If laser technology has advanced and is stable, reliable and effective, you go with that.  My point is that CAMM in isolation as the sole CIWS system appears to create an opportunity for an assymetric mismatch for an opponent with a relatively low cost microdrone system....and if we allow that on our brand new multibillion dollar frigate, we have a big problem.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37062/china-conducts-test-of-massive-suicide-drone-swarm-launched-from-a-box-on-a-truck

Few thoughts:

A powerful EW suite is important as the networked nature of those swarms don't work well in a jamming environment.  This is why the article constantly refers to ground troops, as they generally don't have the capability to jam/distract/seduse/dazzle etc... as a warship does. 

CSC also carries two of these...  specifically designed to deal with those sorts of problems.  Much better capability than a Phalanx for those threats as it has submunitions.

Of course never mentioned in these discussions is the range and mobility inherent with a ship.  Intelligence and threat assessment informs the plan, allowing you to keep to safer areas, or areas where you will have plenty of warning of a launch. 

As far as a laser system, the CSC is being designed with power margins to accept DEW in the future.  Where its placed or how it integrates into the ship is a future engineering problem. I assume that they would be placed where the 30mm (or secondary gun system as its called) is placed.

And assuming swarms of UAS become a real threat there is easily enough space in the ship's flex bay to house our own swarm of defensive UAS (and become "The Hive Ship"  buahahahaha!).

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

So looking at existing design, the two 30mm guns are both mounted at the rear of the ship leaving the front arc exposed.  Assuming all are in agreement that drone swarms will constitute a threat during the life of these ships (hard to determine how rapldly that tech will advance), does it not make sense to i) Install an interim gun solution that could provide immediate defensive capability which fits into the existing footprint (so replace the 30mm with the new compact Bofors 40mm), and ii) at the very least build the platform and wiring into the deck area for future forward mounts outside of the main vls cells?

Just in terms of my objectives in my chain of questions, I'm just trying to avoid an expensive retrofit later, when we could build the future capability into the evolving design, prior to the start of any construction.

Just one additional thought is that in terms of the EW suite,  although jamming remote signals at this time makes sense, we may be less than 10 years away from low cost AI options which would mean even small systems would not need an external signal to reach their targets.  If you're instead proposing directed microwaves to fry internal circuitry, that still seems like be likely to would work these smaller slower AI threats, and in combination with a gun/laser system would make me much more comfortable.

 

[Underway]

So looking at existing design, the two 30mm guns are both mounted at the rear of the ship leaving the front arc exposed.  Assuming all are in agreement that drone swarms will constitute a threat during the life of these ships (hard to determine how rapldly that tech will advance), does it not make sense to i) Install an interim gun solution that could provide immediate defensive capability which fits into the existing footprint (so replace the 30mm with the new compact Bofors 40mm), and ii) at the very least build the platform and wiring into the deck area for future forward mounts outside of the main vls cells?

Just in terms of my objectives in my chain of questions, I'm just trying to avoid an expensive retrofit later, when we could build the future capability into the evolving design, prior to the start of any construction.

Just one additional thought is that in terms of the EW suite,  although jamming remote signals at this time makes sense, we may be less than 10 years away from low cost AI options which would mean even small systems would not need an external signal to reach their targets.  If you're instead proposing directed microwaves to fry internal circuitry, that still seems like be likely to would work these smaller slower AI threats, and in combination with a gun/laser system would make me much more comfortable.

Why do you think a 40mm bofors is any better than a 30mm? 30mm has more rounds and a higher rate of fire, with frangible munitions.  It takes a ship 30 seconds to alter its heading and open up firing arcs for weapons on the quarters.  So only attacks from a 90-120 degree arc forward of the ship will be outside of the 30mm firing arcs.  And you'll be sailing away from the threat then increasing the time required for the threat to get to you.

Why do you think the 127mm can't engage air targets?  Slow moving UAS might be the perfect target for an 127mm airburst.  Maybe there is an EMP 127mm round in development (since we are all about the imaginary future).

There are tradeoffs here.  Any large fast-moving UAS is basically a missile.  It can be dealt with using missile defenses.  Any small slow-moving UAS will be dealt with using the 30mm and EW.  EW isn't a hard kill system, its soft kill. 

Small UAS have uncomplicated targeting systems and simple networking AI.  A networked AI can't handle the power output of a jammer, it will overwhelm their network and therefore each UAS is operating on its own.  Secondly what sensor is the UAS using to target the ship?  IR, video, radar, laser?  All of these systems can be jammed, distracted or seduced away from the ship.  Small UAS don't have the space to harden themselves against that sort of situation.  A flare will distract them, chaff confuses them and a laser dazzler will blind them.  Offboard decoys will pull them on wild goose-chases.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

My neophyte understanding is that 30mm we're installing are tailored to target surface targets as opposed to air targets.  In addition although the 40mm has fewer available rounds, you should need fewer per target, and as a system it has a much deeper effective range. 

Re: The 127mm being uses to cover the frontal arc, as embarrassing as it is to admit, I totally whiffed on that thought. 

Doh!

 

[Underway]

My neophyte understanding is that 30mm we're installing are tailored to target surface targets as opposed to air targets.  In addition although the 40mm has fewer available rounds, you should need fewer per target, and as a system it has a much deeper effective range. 

Re: The 127mm being uses to cover the frontal arc, as embarrassing as it is to admit, I totally whiffed on that thought. 

Doh!

I can understand that.  If I had a nickel for every mistake I've typed in these forum... 

If you look at the link for the 30mm from a previous post of mine it speaks about how the Rafael 30c 30mm naval gun is designed for UAS engagements.  127mm is not really perfect for air engagements but I'm not super boned up on its capabilities.  Its a big explosive radius but its not designed for tracking and shooting air targets.  I assume a "swarm" might be a good target though as even though each individual UAS might be maneuvering the whole formation might be generally stable (flock of birds).  A big airburst from a 125mm might be a good idea in that situation.  *total speculation*

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think we can agree there likely is not one single solution to swarm attacks by sea or air “drones”.  In fact a swarm attack is no less likely than any other type of attack that the CSC might have to contend with. Expending (exhausting?)point defence missiles to deal with a high volume saturation attack may be the actual objective of such an attack in order to draw down available resources that could be used to defend against a volley fired cruise missile attack or to force maneuvering which might impair defences from a torpedo attack.

I think the CSC is somewhat better positioned to deal it with than the 330’s, as in the best defences are (1) a disruptive pre-emptive attack ;(2) better ECM including dazzle, chaff, jamming and flares; (3) probable DEW availability in medium future and highly likely before 1st launch of CSC ; (4) the SPY 7 discrimination radar coupled with more intelligent and more aware combat management system (5) hull form and machinery, propulsion and drive that is far more combat reactive for speed and maneuvering; (6) ESM; (7) evolved thinking and training for combat department;  (8) more weapons of higher quality; (9) AEGIS cooperative engagement; (10)  reduced radar cross section and stealth materials; (11) the old standby: https://www.instagram.com/p/CIVwhfkn_BH/?igshid=bn5yvcop12g4


Would more guns and missiles help? Sure but at some point every ship has limitations. It’s pretty clear these ships are not designed to fight like destroyers nor are the simply patrol frigates. What they will require is an excellent weapons logistics train which at this point appears to be limited to the 2 Protector class AOR and apparently plans to set up forward deployed bases with stocks.  It’s not a bad plan, yes could be improved but better than we have right now.

edit: on the issue of A mount and the gun to deal with swarm attacks, and this is not a popular idea but there is the option of deleting the 127mm and installing the 57mm which is what the USN is choosing for the Constellation class.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

5" guns were in late WWII Pacific the most successful guns for AD, I am assuming that the modern 127mm would work very well with Loitering ammunition that travels likley no faster than a WWII fighter? It also combines shore bombardment and can engage surface targets far from the ships, forcing boat swarms to have to fight their way into attack range. Public information put's the range as 23km against surface targets and 15km in AD mode.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

5" guns were in late WWII Pacific the most successful guns for AD, I am assuming that the modern 127mm would work very well with Loitering ammunition that travels likley no faster than a WWII fighter? It also combines shore bombardment and can engage surface targets far from the ships, forcing boat swarms to have to fight their way into attack range. Public information put's the range as 23km against surface targets and 15km in AD mode.

Not so fast, Colin. The reading that I have done put the 40mm Bofors as the most effective late war gun in the Pacific, responsible for about 50% of all surface to air shoot downs of Japanese aircraft, with the various 5 inch mounts (equipped  with radar direction and VT fusing) coming in at second. 20mm got most of the rest.

There is a definite balance between payload/range (the 5 inch ordnance) and rate of fire (the 40mm mount). In a modern context, the 5 inch ordnance still gives you decent payload and not a bad rate of fire. I am glad we are getting them back in the RCN, but they would not be my first choice for an AA engagement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 40mm was more widespread, plus covered the entire war and theatres. It in turn was quickly being replaced by the 3"/50 which also performed admiringly, and which Canada adopted for the DDE's as well. During that timeframe fuzing options were limited in the 40mm, and I think 3" was the smallest they could fit a proximity fuze to? Late war pacific timeframe allows you to compare 3 excellent AD systems. But that's a lovely debate for another thread.

Interesting to compare a loitering munitions to a kamikaze? Maybe hull and upperworks armour will make a comback? 

 

[Underway]

The modern 40mm and 127mm look the same but are most definitely not the same weapons. 
It's like comparing a rotary phone to a iPhone 10.  Sure they both make a call but the limitations of the former are staggering in the modern world.

The effectiveness of guns comes from the quality of their fire control solution, which in modern times is way better.  No more eyeball the target, now you have gyro stabilization, muzzle velocity detection, air and temp effects, round weight, improved sensors, predictive modeling, round tracking radar etc...

Of these, perhaps the most important new developments are firing patterns and "intelligent" munitions.  Proximity fuses are a good backup, but a firing pattern exploding in an area where the target is going to travel through is actually much better.

That being said targets are harder to hit, coming in lower, faster with better maneuvering options, or with more stealth.  It's an entirely different ecosystem, and comparisons with historical models should be done with a healthy dose of salt.  That being said, they who ignore the lessons of history ...  It's good to know where we have been.

Interesting to compare a loitering munitions to a kamikaze? Maybe hull and upperworks armour will make a comback? 

IMHO loitering munitions are no different than any missile system except that they can wait for their target.  This actually might make them less effective in actually killing naval targets, as if you are flying around in an area a ship could detect them and just avoid that area.  Of course that might be exactly the effect that the enemy was looking for.  Mission kills count.

*edit: spelling/phrasing*

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I was just looking for literature on the Bofors and Leonardo 40mm CIWS and found an article indicating the British have are arming each Type 31 with (1) 57mm and (2) 40mm guns per hull.  I was unaware they had made those decisions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/bae-secures-bofors-naval-guns-order-for-uk-type-31-frigate-program/