Some rumours:
CDC no longer has a length restriction of ~105m. I already assumed this was arbitrary, but now that DND has bought waterfront land beside Shearwater this "space" problem starts to go away. Particularly if they also have plans/thoughts to create a naval station in Quebec.
CDC numbers being discussed are 20. I suspect that's a full build and then replace similar to how the Japanese do their submarines. A drumbeat of one ship per year for 20 years, when you get to year 21 retire the first ship (or sell to a country that doesn't mind older ships, like Chile).
Ship needs to have the self defence capability of a CPF.
Which makes sense. My thoughts are that this doesn't mean it needs the redundancy of a frigate. One air search radar, one fire control radar, 40mm or 57mm, 8 Tactical length VLS, MASS or equivalent, though that could be a mission fit along with RAMSES II or equivalent. Hull mounted sonar, and a Torp magazine to carry ammo needed for a drone to drop torps on something. Small flight deck for drones only and for medevac haul up system.
Of course this might end up being the Canadian "Tier 2 combatant" that the UK (Type 31) and Australia (Mogami) are doing.
I personally find the talk about 20 CDC when the program is so infantile and seemingly not even solidified regarding its basic specifications to putting the cart before the horse, there's a lot of bold statements happening but I am doubtful they will see follow through.
This sort of combatant and platform has a lot of value, although I hope that they do not specialize them to the point that we're lacking a lot of the payload and mission requirements of the MCDV. I feel like we've lost our way somewhat while chasing combat capability, and I don't agree with Topshee's vision of press ganging civilian ships in wartime to fix all of our issues.
And follow up- would it be worth it for such a ship to have a 2nd gun- whether 2x 57mm or 1x 57mm + 1 x30mm - for the additional "close in" defensive fire?
Very unlikely, CDC is likely to share RAM with the RCD alongside a similar arrangement of one main gun and additional smaller calibre autocannons for closer in fire.
I wonder, as time moves on, that DND see's this hull as a chance to allocate some to the Coast Guard as a bridge to further combine Naval CG cultures. Pay the civilians a little more to do security and police and patrol work. Extra hulls to add the, fitted for but not with, should things bonk.
Given what I've heard from CCG members and seen from their overall culture, I don't see this sort of change ever happening given the absolute pissing match it would start with their unions and the juggling of various jurisdictions and mandates between the relevant parties.
I like the French FDI frigate if we are getting something off the shelf but built in Canada:
Defence and intervention frigate - Wikipedia
Defence and intervention frigate - Wikipedia
How far off is the Type 31 from our requirements? Would it be possible to ice strengthen the hull without a major re-design?
It has been heavily pushed that the RCN/Canadian Govt wants the CDC to be a Canadian design with as much Canadian domestic equipment as possible, which means that an off the shelf foreign platform is very unlikely to be picked here. We're looking for maximum sovereignty and domestic work here, existing foreign designs do not provide that.
Noah spoke about this recently and I think
his comments are relevant:
This is your reminder that a Polar-class rating is not a measure of icebreaking capability. Rather, it is a measure of structural survivability, specifically the hull's ability to withstand local ice loads and the machinery’s capacity to function in a polar environment.
Two PC 4 vessels can have very different icebreaking capabilities. Similarly, as an example, some PC 4 vessels actually perform better than some PC 3 vessels. That's why relying on PC ratings is a bit of a gross oversimplification.
Also, a Polar-class vessel is not automatically an icebreaker. There is actually a separate notation for icebreaking vessels; this is something that Peter Rybski has had to remind me of many times over the years.
The Polar-class system isn't designed to be used as a ranking system. You can definitely use it as a quick comparison system, and it has value in discussions because it is still an official measure of capability, but when it comes to icebreaking? It isn't that simple.
Ice strengthening and specifically Polar Classification is largely something that needs to be worked into the design from the ground up and cannot realistically be added after the fact. It's not simply bulking out hull plates but a number of cascading design compromises to make a suitable vessel to its rating.
Silly question here, but does this CDC even have to be a manned platform at all??
There has been some pretty significant improvements to unmanned surface ships in recent years, and their ability to employ both offensive and defensive weaponry.
(Even just looking at Ukraine as an example, their use of speedboats-turned-drones has shown the effectiveness of uncrewed naval systems even if it's a rather technologically simple system. It still blows holes in the sides of ships right at the waterline)
In a constabulatory role, having a crew is probably a basic obvious requirement.
But if the intent of the CDC is to be an armed presence more than anything, and intended to prosecute naval targets using the kind of weaponry we currently find on the CPF's... does it actually need to be crewed at all??
(I'm thinking of this issue from a recruiting/training perspective. But then again I suspect the CDC will very likely be used to train sailors up for the 'heavies' the same way the Kingstons are/were?)
CDC will be large and capable enough that leaving it unmanned is fundamentally irresponsible and unworkable. The technology for these sorts of vessels is very infantile and definitely not up to be automating such a large and still valuable warships, especially regarding many of the roles we plan on using it for both at home and abroad.
I would caution about taking too much of what you see and hear about Ukraine to heart given some of the unique situations and combatants in that war that allow success to happen.
@Underway - am I off base with the thought that these are more about not being outgunned by the likes of Ivan Papanin's and Icebreakers/Research Vessels/ Freighters with spicy seacans on board rather than something expected to join a TG for conventional peer conflict?
CDC is seemingly your "every mans" combatant that we can deploy reasonably cheaply at home and abroad in most theatres where sending a RCD would be overkill. Nobody is really concerned about floating targets like Ivan Papanin (see one already half sunk by Ukraine) given we have the RCAF and Army in the future to blow them up if required, even before the Navy is involved.
