Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

Mad Max?

 

[Furniture]

Mad Max?

It has a 25mm gun, so more "Slightly Perturbed Max".

 

[FJAG]

TFTC Rodger Young (176)?

 

[Furniture]

TFTC Rodger Young (176)?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Newly released infographic and renders.

View attachment 86266


View attachment 86267

View attachment 86268

View attachment 86269

Is that what I think that is ?

 

[Good2Golf]

Is that a Kingpost?

 

[Underway]

Is that what I think that is ?

Looks like it to me. I can't find anything in the image that looks like a RAS station aside from the kingpost. Not sure if you would do fuel and water from that position, but certainly it has the space for a jackstay.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Looks like it to me. I can't find anything in the image that looks like a RAS station aside from the kingpost. Not sure if you would do fuel and water from that position, but certainly it has the space for a jackstay.

I suspect that post is for transfer of dry stores.
A guide to the Type 26 Frigate | Navy Lookout Indicates RAS is on Forward funnel.

 

[Underway]

I suspect that post is for transfer of dry stores.
A guide to the Type 26 Frigate | Navy Lookout Indicates RAS is on Forward funnel.

Good catch.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That is definitely a retractable King post. With the movable highpoint RAS rig at the funnel, it makes sense to have one there: Heavy jackstays and refueling at the funnel, light jackstays and light line transfers forward. In particular, I can see a need for that location to resupply on 5 inch. ammunition. I suspect there is a chute of sort not too far from there to restock the forward magazine.

 

[Underway]

That is definitely a retractable King post. With the movable highpoint RAS rig at the funnel, it makes sense to have one there: Heavy jackstays and refueling at the funnel, light jackstays and light line transfers forward. In particular, I can see a need for that location to resupply on 5 inch. ammunition. I suspect there is a chute of sort not too far from there to restock the forward magazine.

Here's a top down. Not great magnification but there is a hatch it looks like beside the VLS or something port side quarter of the main gun. Its not as simple as passing 57mm or 76mm up and down ladders. 127mm are friggin heavy.



Also looking at the foc'sle its pretty clean, so the cable work for anchors will likely be done below decks. Which begs the question what are the bin type things forward of the gun for?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Fenders, lines, and the equipment for the "dump" people for vertrep (vertrep lines are clearly visible on deck), though I think doing a vertrep there would likely be only for quick personnel transfer without the need for landing aft.

P.S. Could be for the gun barrel cleaning "stuff" also.

Those are all WAG of mine though.

 

[PrairieFella]

Navy folk, what do you think of the design choices on these things? Look like a capable ship? What would you add and what would you take away, what's well done?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What is well done is building them around the SPY 7 radar so you can vary the missile load according to the threat in any given sailing - moving from heavily loaded towards AAW Area Air Defense or towards more point defense air but loaded for ASW (we don't have any at this point but these are strike length VLS, so you can carry the latest incarnation of the ASROC if need be), or more towards land strike Tomahawks as need be.

If you had a lesser radar system, more in line with an ASW ship rigged for self-defense air warfare only, you wouldn't have that flexibility. These are definitely more well-rounded capable ships than the British type 26.

 

[PrairieFella]

.

 

[Underway]

Navy folk, what do you think of the design choices on these things? Look like a capable ship? What would you add and what would you take away, what's well done?

Time to nerd out!

Guns:

• 127mm OTO LW is best choice for the naval gun. The 127mm has a higher rounds per minute and higher calibre (=muzzle velocity and thus hugher range) than the BAE option. VULCANO ammunition had a lot of interesting ammunition types (GPS Guided, laser guided, ER amoung others) that were designed to work with this gun. Its also not ITAR, will be in use with the Germans, Italians, French, Dutch and Spanish.
  It has four revolver loading stations so you can instantly switch between ammo types and the automatic magazine (by all accounts) is very slick.
• 30mm Lionfish is a pretty standard 30mm. Independant EO/IR camera so you can look at stuff without automatically training the gun on them. 200 rounds on the mount. Programable munitions (like airburst) which makes it pretty good vs USV and UAVs. 3.5nm range. Nothing wrong with this gun. Other companies make similar. How good it ends up being depends on integration and features. But overall its going to do its job just fine. I do like its positioning on the ship. The quarters of the hanger give it excellent arcs of fire, good horizon and a nice shoot down capability to put holes in things that float.
• I count 11 50cal/C6 mounting stations. 2 astern, 2 quarters of flight deck, 2 beam at flight deck, 2 beam at bridge wing, 2 bow at bridge wing, 1 foc'sle near the bullring. That seems fine, there might be a requirement for some amidships as well.

Missiles:

• RAM is a very good CIWS. 3-4x the range of the Phalanx, better PKill. Placing it on the beam is fine I guess. Not sure what happens if the ship is recieving a missile attacking from the bow or stern. It might go in a different place though given the ExLS is rumoured to be going away.
• 24 Mk41 VLS seems light to me. The comparables are the Type 26 which will have 24 Mk 41 VLS + 48 single cell Sea Ceptor Launchers. The Hunter Class is going for 32 Mk41 VLS (but there ship is actually going to be bigger and that causes its own issues). The combat management system + radar will make the ships missile more efficient but will that compensate for the lower number of missiles?
• VLS will be carrying ESSM2, SM2 as AAW missiles. The newer missiles are great. Love these as the choice.
• Also potential to carry Tomahawks, which are also a great choice, opens up the strategic strike and longer range ASuW strike as well.
• Naval Strike Missile is the correct choice. Its penetration and targeting are quite good and it can hit GPS positions in a potential land attack role.

CMS and Radar:

• Spy 7 is a very good radar. Only a single air search radar is a bit challenging but its specifically been designed for high availability rates. Well have to see how it works out but given Japan, Taiwan and Spain have also chosen it leads me to think that its not a lemon. Japan and Canada have similar expectations on how it should work so I see us working with them quite a bit.
• Aegis may break the navy. The introduction will completely rewrite how our combat trades work, train, watch rotations, officer qualifications and security requirements. Currently it also means the US has control over the variants and how the system is used. We are giving up control over our own ship fighting style (that we currently control through CMS 330) to adapt the USN one. No doubt that Aegis is an excellent choice but how we're going to adjust is going to be something to watch.
• These to things combined are going to make a very potent combat suite for above water warfare.

I have more thoughts on EW, Mast design, mission deck, and underwater warfare suite but this is fine for now.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Navy folk, what do you think of the design choices on these things? Look like a capable ship? What would you add and what would you take away, what's well done?

If we leave it alone the design of all the marine systems is pretty solid, and has really good damage control (as long as you maintain all the remote systems). We're already starting to try and bolt on some pretty stupid stuff though and occasionally people that don't know what they are doing try and make decisions on things that aren't in their swimlane so I think the big risk is we 'Canadianize' it and lose a lot of the really good passive things the RN has built into the design.

The core crew is really small so will be a lot more important to actually maintain things properly so they work remotely, so lack faith that we'll keep it up to basic standards and not appreciate the impact of what the reduced crew means until something terrible happens. May come up on AOPs or JSS first though, or on the CPFs as they limp through their 'Old Yeller' stage.

 

[Rainbow1910]

RAM is a very good CIWS. 3-4x the range of the Phalanx, better PKill. Placing it on the beam is fine I guess. Not sure what happens if the ship is recieving a missile attacking from the bow or stern. It might go in a different place though given the ExLS is rumoured to be going away.

There isn't really anywhere else to put the mounts besides the broadside locations, the removal of the ExLS doesn't really open any usable space up as the NSM box launchers will still need to be mounted over the mission bay roof. Missile attack from the bow or stern is going to have to be dealt with by ESSM and the main gun, if RAM can't be maneuvered to deal with the threats.

 

[Lumber]

There isn't really anywhere else to put the mounts besides the broadside locations, the removal of the ExLS doesn't really open any usable space up as the NSM box launchers will still need to be mounted over the mission bay roof. Missile attack from the bow or stern is going to have to be dealt with by ESSM and the main gun, if RAM can't be maneuvered to deal with the threats.

If the ship can't be manoeuvred to open the RAM arcs, either there's a torpedo inbound or an ORO needs to be fired.

 

[dimsum]

Navy folk, what do you think of the design choices on these things? Look like a capable ship? What would you add and what would you take away, what's well done?

After @Underway ‘s ….detailed response, I can only imagine their initial reaction to that question was this: