- Reaction score
- 1,023
- Points
- 1,160
No they don't, I believe long lead items for the first three have been ordered so its fair to say we'll get at least three. Future flights will four ships.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,593
- Points
- 1,060
i think the initial 4 is including the stone frigate? Are the rest of the flights 4 as well? Makes sense numbers wise I guess
3 + 1,4,4,4
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,711
- Points
- 1,160
If long lead items have been ordered, I would think a contract is in place?
- Reaction score
- 1,593
- Points
- 1,060
it wasnt for the AOR/JSS
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,711
- Points
- 1,160
So was the order placed by the government or the shipyard?
- Reaction score
- 1,023
- Points
- 1,160
Makes sense that a set of Combat gear will be installed in HMCS Assiniboine.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,132
- Points
- 1,260
They are an interesting collection.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,711
- Points
- 1,160
A nice historical look at our Iroquois Class Destroyers. Interesting that the River Class will be 3,000 tons heavier than these Destroyers.
- Reaction score
- 21,727
- Points
- 1,360
Interesting capability. Ironically, the one thing I find somewhat out of place for a Euro/Navatia build is the choice of Cat 3616s as the cruise engine, and not a European brand. Maybe - condition to get AEGIS and the SPY-1?
Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
We've been working with one of these a lot. Seems impressive.
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
Agree 100%.
Also remember that a version of this ship didn't even make it to the final review for the CSC. There is a reason for that.
The Wiki doesn't have things like noise generation, radar performance, damage control analysis.
As far as I remember, Navatia was one of the three options along with Damen and BAE.
The radar was top state-of-the-art at the time of delivery, sadly it has only be upgraded on the 5th and final frigate (launched several years after the 4th was delivered).
Damage control should be in line with USN practices, as the Spanish Navy mostly follow/copies USN procedures.
But... what do I know as a civilian?
The radar was top state-of-the-art at the time of delivery, sadly it has only be upgraded on the 5th and final frigate (launched several years after the 4th was delivered).
Damage control should be in line with USN practices, as the Spanish Navy mostly follow/copies USN procedures.
But... what do I know as a civilian?
- Reaction score
- 6,235
- Points
- 1,040
Double the original weight; they started at around 3500 tonnes pre-TRUMP mid life upgrade, so the water displaced fuel tanks were needed to keep them stable, pretty crazy when you think about it. Didn't use bladders either, so wouldn't be allowed anymore with environmental concerns (also added a lot of maintenance).
The 'park in Ottawa' the bow of IRO is displayed at is actually on the NDHQ Carling campus (just off Carling entrance) so get to drive by it regularly now.
They were a great class in their time, and well designed and maintained (up until the last decade or so). They had a lot more beef on the hulls compared to the CPFs, and had a lot of piping changed out in their first 20 years, so were still in better shape at end of life compared to the CPFs now.
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
They were offering a CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT combined mast. Despite Australian Armchair Admiral protestations I'm fairly confident that the CEAFAR 2 is not as good as the SPY-7, but overall I think the ship wasn't chosen on its ASW performance. Canada selected the best ASW platform and added a hell of a radar to it. It has cost us in magazine depth I'm sure though.
Regarding radar, of couse I am only guessing as I don't have access to the bid documents, but since the tender originally requested for an existing vessel , I tend to think Navatia opted to offer a proven radar. If they had been allowed (from the beginning) to offer the Spy-7 as they are using in the F-110 most probably they had offered it.
Similarly about the propulsion plant. F-110 is using a CODLOG scheme (maybe ...AG?, not sure) pretty similar to that of the CSC (just change the R&R GT for a GE GT). But since F-110 was not an existing ship by then they probably quoted an existing CODAG system.
Edited to add:
The point beig that I guess Navantia placed their offer based on existing ship, even though the preliminary design of F-110 was ready. Actually F-110 project started (meaning getting Ok & funds to proceed) only a few months later than CSC. On the other hand, they passed the CDR a few months in advance than CSC and progress on the 1st unit is ahead of the CSC.
Seems we were writing at the same time, had not seen your previous note on CEAFAR radar, which is reasonable as they had just offered also the (same?) design for the RAN.
Similarly about the propulsion plant. F-110 is using a CODLOG scheme (maybe ...AG?, not sure) pretty similar to that of the CSC (just change the R&R GT for a GE GT). But since F-110 was not an existing ship by then they probably quoted an existing CODAG system.
Edited to add:
The point beig that I guess Navantia placed their offer based on existing ship, even though the preliminary design of F-110 was ready. Actually F-110 project started (meaning getting Ok & funds to proceed) only a few months later than CSC. On the other hand, they passed the CDR a few months in advance than CSC and progress on the 1st unit is ahead of the CSC.
Seems we were writing at the same time, had not seen your previous note on CEAFAR radar, which is reasonable as they had just offered also the (same?) design for the RAN.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 6,235
- Points
- 1,040
That's one thing I don't get, we seem to be trying to get it to do some things that aren't very ASW like. For the RN, they have the T45 and T31, so they can focus on ASW for the T26 no problem. Also weird that the RN didn't have a degausging system so we're going to shoehorn one in (then never actually follow throuogh during in service on things like shock/noise mount maintenance and maintaining your magnetic signature properly).
I'm sure someone is already moaning about the lack of CRPP, but does make the shaftline a bit simpler (having said that the 280 shaft and gearing was dead easy, the CPF CPP is overly complex and some things like the shaft lock and no gear driven LO pump are nuts).
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,221
- Points
- 1,010
Well, they will just have to learn to count to nine, as we did before the 280's and CPF's.
That was the number of seconds (IIRC) between ordering astern movement on the bridge, its transmission to the engine room, the application of the brake on the shaft, engaging the reversing gear, admitting steam to it and the propeller actually beginning to turn in reverse.
That was the number of seconds (IIRC) between ordering astern movement on the bridge, its transmission to the engine room, the application of the brake on the shaft, engaging the reversing gear, admitting steam to it and the propeller actually beginning to turn in reverse.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 810
Yeah the Navantia and Damen's designs both originated from the late 1990's and while pretty good ships in their own right, their specialization as AAW designs foremost likely did not mesh well with the ASW requirements compared to the Type 26.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
I am calling it Navatia 0 - 2 in their hit to sinking battle score. Lol
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
Canada Looks to US Navy for Non-Developmental EW for CSC
Article on EW for the CSC.
-Electronic Attack is provided by NULKA -The Nulka active missile decoy is the most sophisticated soft-kill defence system against anti-ship missiles available for the protection of surface warships (stuff in bold is from the Nulka website... take it with salt though the system is quite good, if it was that good though the USN wouldn't need SEWIP Block 3)
-Electronic Support provided by AN/SLQ-32(V)6 (SEWIP Block 2) - The SEWIP Block 2 system provides early detection, analysis, and threat warning from anti-ship missiles for surface ships.
-MDA is still doing the laser warning and countermeasure system
-SRD 506 is going to be installed as well - communications detection system, the family of which we use in the RCN
-the one thing they are missing is the SOPD which are big floaty decoys that look like 20 sided dice. Those are also EA systems
The reasons for changes from some previously listed equipment (RAVEN, Zeus, NGDS) is as follows:
Overall good decision for the project to reduce integration risk, though I really liked the Safran NGDS trainable decoy launcher system quite a bit even over NULKA mainly because of its flexibility and coverage.
Article on EW for the CSC.
-Electronic Attack is provided by NULKA -The Nulka active missile decoy is the most sophisticated soft-kill defence system against anti-ship missiles available for the protection of surface warships (stuff in bold is from the Nulka website... take it with salt though the system is quite good, if it was that good though the USN wouldn't need SEWIP Block 3)
-Electronic Support provided by AN/SLQ-32(V)6 (SEWIP Block 2) - The SEWIP Block 2 system provides early detection, analysis, and threat warning from anti-ship missiles for surface ships.
-MDA is still doing the laser warning and countermeasure system
-SRD 506 is going to be installed as well - communications detection system, the family of which we use in the RCN
-the one thing they are missing is the SOPD which are big floaty decoys that look like 20 sided dice. Those are also EA systems
The reasons for changes from some previously listed equipment (RAVEN, Zeus, NGDS) is as follows:
Code for... most of this stuff is already integrated into AEGIS so lets not screw around paying for different equipment to be integrated (or more likely US will not allow any changes to AEGIS). It's also a shot against RAVEN which is still in development.
Overall good decision for the project to reduce integration risk, though I really liked the Safran NGDS trainable decoy launcher system quite a bit even over NULKA mainly because of its flexibility and coverage.
