Continental Defence Corvette

[Colin Parkinson]

A cautionary tale of going to cheap

 

[suffolkowner]

Self Defence length Mark 41 was never actually produced for a customer, and seems to have been entirely discontinued by 2026. Mark 56 VLS is also a legacy Cold War system that specializes in placement aboard very small vessels/ships without space, it is a sub-optimal system and likely will not be fitted aboard a larger and bespoke design like CDC. I think tactical length Mark 41 is a likely choice however, fitting a limited bank of strike length missiles could be done on a sufficiently large design, which CDC seems to be moving to. You could also circumvent this concern by carrying Mark 70 containerized launchers in addition to the already present VLS on either the flight deck or the mission deck, which many CDC concept designs seem to incorporate.


The Australian Adelaide-class frigates in their last refit were outfitted with tactical length Mark 41 VLS cells which jutted out of the deck a fair bit, although this is relatively uncommon and sub-optimal for many reasons.

It doesn't seem like recent renderings of concepts require that tradeoff, and fit basically everything. We're seemingly out of an MCDV sized vessel and looking at a real combatant.


ASROC takes up valuable VLS slots for a system which is dated and has questionable range, foreign models of similar systems are superior but its still not ideal compared to a helicopter. We don't really know what ASW capabilities will look like in the future with unmanned systems, so it's a bit hard to say at this point. You could perhaps fit torpedoes to unmanned aviation assets and fit them aboard.

On the SD Mk41 i found that interesting with respect to the RCDs. Thinking that was an option to put an 8 cell where the 2 seaceptor VLS are on the UK version

 

[Halifax Tar]

A cautionary tale of going to cheap

I think it would shock Canadians to know how often our deployed ships have major combat and engineering systems U/S.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think it would shock Canadians to know how often our deployed ships have major combat and engineering systems U/S.

I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.

As a killick I knew the NSN for the CIWIS Air Dryer Assy off by heart because I had to HPR it so often. On my TOR deployment in '06 I think I had to HPR that part for just about every port.

 

[Furniture]

I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.

All navies have similar issues, the ocean is not nice to fancy high tech systems.

We dont make it better by not investing as much as we should in maintenance, but we are also not alone in that. We just don't spend time other navy's forums to read about their issues.

 

[NavyShooter]

If you recall the story about the state of readiness of the Moskova when she was hit and sunk, the number of major OPDEF level problems on that ship were huge...I'll see if I can dig up the link.

Found a Reddit reference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/ujx4ez/this_is_a_leaked_report_on_the_readiness_status

Highlights are:

1. Fort has issues with keeping illumination to the target and keeping the missiles painted to the target in one of the electronic (non-firing) exercises
2. The FCRs for the Osa-MA has issues with being not active or has issues when active.
3. MR-123s for the AK-630s have issues with their opto-electronic systems and no indicators of system being on active scan.

Overall, the ship was barely in fighting condition 14 days before the war and with its defensive systems in worse conditions.

Another thing that was notable was interference between the MR-800 Flag primary air search radar and the SATCOM systems.

Turning the radar to active scan mode (Ch. 3) would make the SATCOM system unstable and unusable.

 

[Halifax Tar]

All navies have similar issues, the ocean is not nice to fancy high tech systems.

We dont make it better by not investing as much as we should in maintenance, but we are also not alone in that. We just don't spend time other navy's forums to read about their issues.

Big machines require big maintenance and logistics.

Some countries do that much better than we do.

Our problems are exasperated by low numbers. We don't have depth in platforms and parts to weather loss of capability on one hull without it causing trickle down effects. Sure ABs have engineering issues but there are currently 78 afloat with another 15 on order. That gives them an ability to cover system failures, and affect repairs, while maintaining op tempo that we simply don't have.

If you every get exposed to LOGFAS while on a Naval deployment have a peak through it. It could be interesting as it will tell you how well the ships in your NATO TG are doing.

 

[Furniture]

Turning the radar to active scan mode (Ch. 3) would make the SATCOM system unstable and unusable.

You'd think they would jave learned from the Brits in 1982...

 

[Kirkhill]

Deleted - others said it better

 

[Rainbow1910]

A cautionary tale of going to cheap

This is why we all should be careful about getting caught up in the mentality that everything we do is bad, and everything other parties do is much better. The Nordic countries get an exceptional amount of good press for many of their warships and naval procurements, but the reality is there is a throughline of government cost obfuscation, widescale reusing of old equipment, lack of costs assigned to proper upkeep/development, overly optimistic warship stats and the fact few of the issues present in these navies make it out to English sourced reporting.

The Danes are a prime example, they cheap out on their warship designs in most aspects and many people fall to their knees groveling at these apparent marvels of engineering they produce. Those same people sputter out cope when these vaunted ships actually see combat, and everything immediately starts falling apart due to the same cost saving measures they previously cheer leaded.

The grass might look greener over the fence, but half the time its either plastic turf or somebody just finished applying a can of green spray paint over some dying sods.

 

[Furniture]

Big machines require big maintenance and logistics.

Some countries do that much better than we do.

True, and many countries do much worse. We can be better, a lot better, but we aren't that far off the norm.

Our problems are exasperated by low numbers. We don't have depth in platforms and parts to weather loss of capability on one hull without it causing trickle down effects. Sure ABs have engineering issues but there are currently 74 afloat with another 15 on order. That gives them an ability to cover system failures, and affect repairs, that we simply don't have.

Nobody can compare to the Americans, except the Chinese, when it comes to numbers.

Keeping the comparisons more reasonable, 12 surface combattants isn't that small compared to most. Our problem isn't numbers as much as a chronic lack of funding and a lack of interest in sustainment (personnel and materiel) from the top.

If you every get exposed to LOGFAS while on a Naval deployment have a peak through it. It could be interesting as it will tell you how well the ships in your NATO TG are doing.

Next time I have a chance, I'll definitely check it out. I always learned about the issues from the morning chats with the CO, or when chatting with the OROs.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is why we all should be careful about getting caught up in the mentality that everything we do is bad, and everything other parties do is much better. The Nordic countries get an exceptional amount of good press for many of their warships and naval procurements, but the reality is there is a throughline of government cost obfuscation, widescale reusing of old equipment, lack of costs assigned to proper upkeep/development, overly optimistic warship stats and the fact few of the issues present in these navies make it out to English sourced reporting.

The Danes are a prime example, they cheap out on their warship designs in most aspects and many people fall to their knees groveling at these apparent marvels of engineering they produce. Those same people sputter out cope when these vaunted ships actually see combat, and everything immediately starts falling apart due to the same cost saving measures they previously cheer leaded.

The grass might look greener over the fence, but half the time its either plastic turf or somebody just finished applying a can of green spray paint over some dying sods.

The problem with the OTO Melara ammunition is interesting to me. That's a pretty trusted weapons system and used globally.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The problem with the OTO Melara ammunition is interesting to me. That's a pretty trusted weapons system and used globally.

The problem likely isn't on OTO Melara, but on the Dane's given they reused very old models and seemingly didn't properly maintain the mounts/ammunition. It's very telling that the Danes went out and purchased brand new 76mm guns and mounts for their ships after being thoroughly embarrassed in the Red Sea.

 

[Halifax Tar]

True, and many countries do much worse. We can be better, a lot better, but we aren't that far off the norm.

With the deepest respect, I really don't care if we are the worst or not. We just need to be better. IMHO this is an example of where Canada needs to choose, militarily, what it wants to be. Do we want to meet the standard or do we want to exceed it ?

Nobody can compare to the Americans, except the Chinese, when it comes to numbers.

Keeping the comparisons more reasonable, 12 surface combattants isn't that small compared to most. Our problem isn't numbers as much as a chronic lack of funding and a lack of interest in sustainment (personnel and materiel) from the top.

When you're building 99 platforms you get more material support from industry than you do when you build 12 or 15. Not that I am advocating for us to build 99 RCDs, but if were only going to buy 12 or 15 then we need to vastly outspend that in spare parts and warehousing upfront to sustain the lifetime of the platform.

Buying in bulk has its advantages. Costco ships anyone ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem likely isn't on OTO Melara, but on the Dane's given they reused very old models and seemingly didn't properly maintain the mounts/ammunition. It's very telling that the Danes went out and purchased brand new 76mm guns and mounts for their ships after being thoroughly embarrassed in the Red Sea.

From wiki:

On the 27th of March, 2025, on account of the significant issues experienced with the combat management system and the APAR radar, as well the significant cost associated with a Mid Life Update, the entire class of ships were reportedly considered for a downgrade and role-change, leaving space for a new class of air defense frigates. If effectuated, this would see the class of ships in a smaller Baltic Sea patrol role instead.

Yikes...

 

[Czech_pivo]

The problem with the OTO Melara ammunition is interesting to me. That's a pretty trusted weapons system and used globally.

Is the only way to discover an issue with the proximity fuses is to use the shells in a live fire drill?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The problem likely isn't on OTO Melara, but on the Dane's given they reused very old models and seemingly didn't properly maintain the mounts/ammunition. It's very telling that the Danes went out and purchased brand new 76mm guns and mounts for their ships after being thoroughly embarrassed in the Red Sea.

How old will our 57's be by the time we build the CDC's (if they get built) and we decide to reuse the 57's on the new CDC's? Would we be risking the same scenario as you describe above?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is the only way to discover an issue with the proximity fuses is to use the shells in a live fire drill?

That system has been in service since 1964 and continually upgraded. Its been tested I would imagine thousands of times before.

AMMO Does get produced in batches and are tracked by batch lots, to track things like this. It would be interesting know what came out of any batch lot reporting. @AmmoTech90 you are better at this than me if you want to weigh in...

 

[Czech_pivo]

That system has been in service since 1964 and continually upgraded. Its been test I would imagine thousands of times before.

AMMO Does get produced in batches and are tracked by batch lots, to track things like this. It would be interesting know what came out of any batch lot reporting. @AmmoTech90 you are better at this than me if you want to weigh in...

I guess what I was trying to ask and didn't do a good job of was, can you 'tell' by looking at the shells if there would be the potential that there was an issue with the proximately fuses or is the only way to know that there was an issue was to fire them?