• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Continental Defence Corvette

Okay, not a naval expert, but could you use underwater sensors and XLUUV/UUV to detect foreign submarines and communicate that info to the CDC's?
And what does the CDC do with that information if it has no ASW helicopter to attack the submarine? ASROC? Do you want to get that close to the sub? P-8? Might be an option off the coast of Vancouver Island or the Gulf of St-Lawrence, but what would be the response time to get up to the ice edge? Or is the plan to provide persistent top cover to the CDC's up there?
 
And what does the CDC do with that information if it has no ASW helicopter to attack the submarine? ASROC? Do you want to get that close to the sub? P-8? Might be an option off the coast of Vancouver Island or the Gulf of St-Lawrence, but what would be the response time to get up to the ice edge? Or is the plan to provide persistent top cover to the CDC's up there?
We don’t know. I don’t think CRCN knows, even though the whole thing is his idea.
We don’t and won’t have a big enough navy to build single purpose or limited purpose combatants.
 
does it need to go underwater? Could it be an unmanned surface vessel?

No. Yes.

And what does the CDC do with that information if it has no ASW helicopter to attack the submarine?

Calls for help from someone or thing that can carry out the kill , and steers the hell away from the threat in the meantime.
 
So a Mk48 torpedo weighs 1676 kg
It is a tube 5.8 m long and 0.53 m in diameter.
Two of them weigh 3352 kg or 3.352 tonnes.

Apparently a block of styrofoam 5.663 m3 (5.663 m x 1 m x 1 m) will support a load of 5 tonnes.

That would allow 1.65 tonnes of residual buoyancy for structure, propulsion, electronics and ancillaries.

Take two aluminum tubes of 6m length and 0.53 m diameter. Lay them side by side and weld them together. There is your core rigid structure. Insert in a mold and layer on the polyfoam. Sculpt to final form and coat.

Add necessary propulsion and steering gear, comms gear, fuel and a tank of compressed air.

Insert a Mk 48 into each tube.

.....

How Polycraft makes their boats.


.....


The Rattler USV, an autonomous RIB being tested and deployed by the RN as part of its Bastion strategy. It conducted a 500 mile escort mission the length of Britain while controlled from land.



.....

The Excalibur XLUUV, an autonomous sub with novel navigation systems on board that was recently tested in British waters while being controlled from Australia.




 
I served on the IREs and Mackenzie Class. Those ships were about the same dimensions and tonnage as the CDC specs.

Let me tell you, a helo deck and hangar would come in handy even without an embarked air det.

Money is not the issue anymore. It’s all borrowed anyway and it will never be paid back. We can either borrow and give it to Ukraine or to the CAF. I know which options I favour.
Handy isn't the same as necessary, and money spent there is money not available to be spent where it is needed.

Borrowed money or not, it adds an opportunity cost. Every dollar spent on an unnecessary hangar is a dollar not spent on needed things, like training, personnel costs, or spares to keep the ships running.

The hangar is useful for more than aircraft. Maybe garage with a helo deck is a better term.
And I’m not talking about square dancing either. A dry place to assemble, sort kit, bring VERTREP supplies by hand truck, hold debris taken from crash sites or interesting stuff found floating in the ocean, store extra zodiacs, store HADR or remote site supplies, conceal embarked special mission kit and equipment you don’t want the bad guys to see. All kinds of stuff that a ship like that might easily be tasked to do.
You don't need a hangar kitted out for sustaining an air det at sea for those tasks. A multi-mission bay for UAVs, smaller and cheaper than a MH hangar, is more than enough for the task. Nobody has argued against a big(ish) bay for those sorts of uses...

And what does the CDC do with that information if it has no ASW helicopter to attack the submarine? ASROC? Do you want to get that close to the sub? P-8? Might be an option off the coast of Vancouver Island or the Gulf of St-Lawrence, but what would be the response time to get up to the ice edge? Or is the plan to provide persistent top cover to the CDC's up there?
You are aware that the idea is to not blindly stumble into submarines right? The CDC isnt going to be tasked to just "go find subs" without other int sources backing the mission, and the appropriate support also added for the task. This isn't 1942...
 
And what does the CDC do with that information if it has no ASW helicopter to attack the submarine? ASROC? Do you want to get that close to the sub? P-8? Might be an option off the coast of Vancouver Island or the Gulf of St-Lawrence, but what would be the response time to get up to the ice edge? Or is the plan to provide persistent top cover to the CDC's up there?
How about this thing?


Or ASROC.
 

Oceanus vessels are being considered for Bastion.
 
My main concern still remains planning a ship around a system that doesn't exist.

However, when I was at GDMS, I tried to make interest in creating a system of system that would match this use case. It's primary purpose was to augment the embarked helicopter, and to get sensors on station before the helicopter launched to develop the picture, but I think it has applicability here.

The problem was a lot of companies only robustly study things they have a RFP for, and since they didn't, they didn't.

First, the requirement as I see it:
  • very small footprint
  • data largely usable by existing ship's systems and crew
  • over the horizon ASW search and localize
  • over the horizon ASW attack (if it's any closer you're already dead)
  • over the horizon EO/IR
  • over the horizon ESM, especially SIGINT
That means there's one derived requirement: comms relay.

The proposed solution relies on cheap expendable UAVs and consists of three pieces:

All of the search stores are based on A-Size sonos. All of them would sacrifice sensor performance for weight, size, and cost. Performance would be mitigated by being able to approach the target closer.

The current generation of sonobuoys would all be able to be carried by ESFK. They would independantly fly out to the search area, and then shed the wings to deploy. This would enable both active and passive acoustic search.

Coyote would come in the following variations, all as an expendable store:
  • EO, hopefully EO and low light EO could be combined.
  • IR
  • MAD
  • Comms Relay and ESM. This would be enabled using an inexpensive software defined radio (SDR) such as the Lime Microsystems LMS-8001. It has a potential frequency coverage of 100kHz up to 12 GHz. Comms relay would be accomplished by rebroadcasting unto the same band. For instance, sonobuoys could be received on 136-152Mhz and rebroadcast on 158-174Mhz. That would allow fitted sonobuoy receivers and processors to utilize the relay without modification. The standard antenna fit would be a tunable VHF-UHF antenna. The antenna group would be swappable for RWR, which would proably only indicate presence, not direction.

The launch system would be able to easily load and launch either configuration. No recovery system would be required.

I think the cost of Coyote could be kept in the same order of magnitude as a DIFAR sono. It could be a joint system, as the US Army is already trialling it, and it is air droppable by Cyclone and P-8. It is already fielded with the NOAA with an atmospheric package.
 
Back
Top