Continental Defence Corvette

[Colin Parkinson]

It would be nice to be able to send a team to visit some of these new ships and get to see them during ops and help gather information on what sort of things are what we may want in the CDC, that have already been done before either well or badly.

 

[Underway]

Will it be a challenge to get 27+ on the CDC with a Polar Class of 5 or 6?

I think CDC will aim for 25 knots but now that there is light frigate talk that may no longer be the case. The polar class they want is just ice resistance. There won't be a hull form change just a hull steel change for that. And perhaps some changes to the shaftline and propellers.

They don't want to go through ice per say, they just want to be able to work near ice and not worry so much.

Maybe first year St. Laurence thickness.

 

[Lumber]

If anyone is interested, here's a very nice visit to the first French Defense and Intervention Frigate, the FNS Amiral Ronarc'h in operations sea trials. One of the very interesting feature is the Asymetrical Warfare Operations Center, aft of the bridge, which provides 360 degrees camera surveillance in daylight, low-vis (IR) and night time and centralizes the control of all anti-drone or surface small vessels defense, including high power strobe lights, Ultra sound guns and remote controled small calibre guns.

Unfortunately, it is a French Tv show, so only available in French.

My issue with these types of ops rooms, especially in the case of the Mogami class, is battle damage survivability. These resigns are awesome and really cool and are likely exceptional well suited to constabulary ops. But I worry that they are too "fragile" (I could be wrong). If your tactical display is attached to a shock mounted chassis, it's far less likely to go down from the shock of a torpedo blowing up astern of you or from a missile hit to your hangar then say a giant curved high-def LCD mounted on the bulkhead.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My issue with these types of ops rooms, especially in the case of the Mogami class, is battle damage survivability. These resigns are awesome and really cool and are likely exceptional well suited to constabulary ops. But I worry that they are too "fragile" (I could be wrong). If your tactical display is attached to a shock mounted chassis, it's far less likely to go down from the shock of a torpedo blowing up astern of you or from a missile hit to your hangar then say a giant curved high-def LCD mounted on the bulkhead.

I would make two points in reply to this:

First, I would say that, in its service life, a frigate such as this, or the CDC, are likely to be employed in constabulary/asymmetrical warfare (small boats and drones) for 99% of their career and in a missile/torpedo environment for about 1% - so why not go for the tools to assist you with your most likely employment; and,

Second, if you are in the later scenario and you took a missile or torpedo hit, I don't think you give much of a flying f..k about losing your "asymmetrical warfare ops room" anymore.

 

[Underway]

My issue with these types of ops rooms, especially in the case of the Mogami class, is battle damage survivability. These resigns are awesome and really cool and are likely exceptional well suited to constabulary ops. But I worry that they are too "fragile" (I could be wrong). If your tactical display is attached to a shock mounted chassis, it's far less likely to go down from the shock of a torpedo blowing up astern of you or from a missile hit to your hangar then say a giant curved high-def LCD mounted on the bulkhead.

I don't think the ship will be large enough to take a missile hit and keep going, while still fighting. @Oldgateboatdriver has it correct, all you efforts will be DC and none of them will be operations room stuff. So consider the ops room disposable after battle damage has been inflicted.

Fight is off the table, down to Move and Float only.

 

[quadrapiper]

I would make two points in reply to this:

First, I would say that, in its service life, a frigate such as this, or the CDC, are likely to be employed in constabulary/asymmetrical warfare (small boats and drones) for 99% of their career and in a missile/torpedo environment for about 1% - so why not go for the tools to assist you with your most likely employment; and,

Speaking of boats, what should the CDC be carrying/have the bay or cradle space for, especially if there's no embarked helicopter?

 

[Underway]

Speaking of boats, what should the CDC be carrying/have the bay or cradle space for, especially if there's no embarked helicopter?

For "Safe at Sea" regulations you need a certain number of operational boats and operational cranes to launch them per number of people onboard. I don't know what the number is but I do know this:

• MCDV's need one crane to launch the rescue zodiac.
• HFX need two cranes, one for the zodiac and one for the 9m (min size) RHIB. (used to be one, was very recently changed to two).
• PRO same as HFX, though the ship has three boat launch cranes IIRC (or perhaps fitted for not with, or one of them is dual use).
• AOPS no idea (@Stoker do you know?)

Ships will not sail if they don't have at least one rescue boat available. You can sail with less than the prescribed number but that requires a risk analysis waiver.

 

[Kirkhill]

For "Safe at Sea" regulations you need a certain number of operational boats and operational cranes to launch them per number of people onboard. I don't know what the number is but I do know this:

• MCDV's need one crane to launch the rescue zodiac.
• HFX need two cranes, one for the zodiac and one for the 9m (min size) RHIB. (used to be one, was very recently changed to two).
• PRO same as HFX, though the ship has three boat launch cranes IIRC (or perhaps fitted for not with, or one of them is dual use).
• AOPS no idea (@Stoker do you know?)

Ships will not sail if they don't have at least one rescue boat available. You can sail with less than the prescribed number but that requires a risk analysis waiver.

@Oldgateboatdriver 's question still stands.

I would rephrase the question and ask the question how much bay and cradle space is being allocated to the storage, management and deployment of UxVs with which the CDCs are likely to be operating.

Old Corvettes crammed every bit of deck and hold space with gear.

Newer vessel designs are emphasizing unutilized space. They are longer. They are beamier. They can displace more when fully loaded. They can carry more deadweight.

But their weapon and sensor fits are not dissimilar to earlier vessels.

A lot of the current generation of vessels look like a Halifax with a 1500 tonne capacity barge grafted on back aft.

 

[Stoker]

For "Safe at Sea" regulations you need a certain number of operational boats and operational cranes to launch them per number of people onboard. I don't know what the number is but I do know this:

• MCDV's need one crane to launch the rescue zodiac.
• HFX need two cranes, one for the zodiac and one for the 9m (min size) RHIB. (used to be one, was very recently changed to two).
• PRO same as HFX, though the ship has three boat launch cranes IIRC (or perhaps fitted for not with, or one of them is dual use).
• AOPS no idea (@Stoker do you know?)

Ships will not sail if they don't have at least one rescue boat available. You can sail with less than the prescribed number but that requires a risk analysis waiver.

I believe they need one davit for the MRRB available.

 

[Underway]

@Oldgateboatdriver 's question still stands.

I would rephrase the question and ask the question how much bay and cradle space is being allocated to the storage, management and deployment of UxVs with which the CDCs are likely to be operating.

Nobody knows. The requirements are still being written as we speak.

A lot of the current generation of vessels look like a Halifax with a 1500 tonne capacity barge grafted on back aft.

Some of them do for sure.

 

[quadrapiper]

For "Safe at Sea" regulations you need a certain number of operational boats and operational cranes to launch them per number of people onboard. I don't know what the number is but I do know this:

• MCDV's need one crane to launch the rescue zodiac.
• HFX need two cranes, one for the zodiac and one for the 9m (min size) RHIB. (used to be one, was very recently changed to two).
• PRO same as HFX, though the ship has three boat launch cranes IIRC (or perhaps fitted for not with, or one of them is dual use).
• AOPS no idea (@Stoker do you know?)

Ships will not sail if they don't have at least one rescue boat available. You can sail with less than the prescribed number but that requires a risk analysis waiver.

Thank you; interesting to see the comparison.

Was wondering not only from a purely ship/rescue needs perspective, but also looking at @Oldgateboatdriver 's comment re: how the CDC will likely spend its time - would extra boats be useful enough to be worth carrying, and if so, what kind on top of the rescue zodiac? A pair of 9m RHIBs for redundancy and flex? A RHIB and something in the floating pickup truck realm, along with a beefier crane to enable stores/UAV/whatever transfer? Something else entirely?

 

[Swampbuggy]

Somewhere out there is apparently a photo of someone waterskiing behind one of the Halifax class.

While that’s impressive, I’d be more entertained by someone waterskiing in front of a Halifax class.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I’d be more entertained by someone waterskiing in front of a Halifax class.

Those are called porpoises and dolphins.

 

[Stoker]

Thank you; interesting to see the comparison.

Was wondering not only from a purely ship/rescue needs perspective, but also looking at @Oldgateboatdriver 's comment re: how the CDC will likely spend its time - would extra boats be useful enough to be worth carrying, and if so, what kind on top of the rescue zodiac? A pair of 9m RHIBs for redundancy and flex? A RHIB and something in the floating pickup truck realm, along with a beefier crane to enable stores/UAV/whatever transfer? Something else entirely?

They'll have some sort of davit on each side for a RHIB/MRRB launching and recovery. I would imagine an articulating crane where the payloads are, perhaps two (one where the UAV hanger is and one where the payloads are).

 

[Rainbow1910]

Noah recently shared a conceptual graphic of the CDC, although as always take it with a grain of salt. It was said that this should only be taken as only representative and not an accurate showing of what the design might be.

With that being said, it is interesting to see a fixed panel array with a Mogami style sensor mast. NSM amidships with a 35mm Millennium Gun forward. Looks to be either Phalanx or SeaRAM aft, with a decent sized boat bay amidships, a landing pad of some size aft and it looks like potentially a working deck on the stern?

Either way, interesting concept that seems to take a lot from Mogami atleast aesthetically speaking.

 

[Underway]

Noah recently shared a conceptual graphic of the CDC, although as always take it with a grain of salt. It was said that this should only be taken as only representative and not an accurate showing of what the design might be.

With that being said, it is interesting to see a fixed panel array with a Mogami style sensor mast. NSM amidships with a 35mm Millennium Gun forward. Looks to be either Phalanx or SeaRAM aft, with a decent sized boat bay amidships, a landing pad of some size aft and it looks like potentially a working deck on the stern?

Either way, interesting concept that seems to take a lot from Mogami atleast aesthetically speaking.

View attachment 99741

You missed the AN/SLQ-32 SEWIP type panels at the base of the mast... lol

 

[Kirkhill]

I am constantly accused, justifiably, of crossing lines and screwing up silos. But things are moving so fast and solutions are crossing domains at such a pace that I honestly can't make up my mind which particular silo or silos need to be fed the new information.

This article is one of those. It is particularly dense.

1. The Arleigh Burkes will be around for a long while to come
2. They have a history of being constantly upgraded and used as test platforms for the fleet, often by bolting on novel solutions.
3. The USN, like everyone else, is looking for a CUAS solution and they are pretty agnostic about what that looks like.
4. They are trialling anything that might work and giving it a shot.
5. They are looking for new launch systems and they seem to be working across domains for platform independent solutions.
6. They are currently trialling what appears to be a new hot launch system on the Carl M. Levin



The suggestion is that it might be related to this concept



Between the CIWS and the Mk41s are a pair of launchers. They appear to be mini versions of this, the Mk70 PDS system:



Personal inferences and suppositions -

The Mk70 incorporates an array of launch tubes and exhaust stacks that can be pivoted from the horizontal for transport and storage to the vertical for launch. In the horizontal position the launch tubes lay on top of the exhaust stacks. In the vertical, on launch the exhaust is vented safely upwards.

One thing that strikes me is: Why bother?

Why bother putting a separate elevating mechanism in each container? Why not just treat each container as a pod and install a single elevating system on the launch platform and reload the elevator horizontally and elevate the entire container to the vertical and launch directly from the container. The exhaust stacks could still be incorporated within the "disposable/reusable' container but you wouldn't be wasting mass, volume, money and complexity on separate motors to elevate the launch tubes.

But back to the issue at hand - and it is related to my "Why Bother?" question.

The launcher displayed being reloaded in the model by hand horizontally, and in the vertical launch position appears to have taken the basic "launch tube / exhaust stack" package of the Mk 70 and not just miniaturized it but inverted it. In the horizontal mode the exhaust stacks lay on top and the launch tubes are on the bottom. Presumably this makes no difference to the exhaust management but it makes hand bombing reloads into the launch tubes easier.

It is also notable that the launcher on the Levin has a rotating platform. If you are launching vertically why do you need a rotating platform? Once you pop up into vertical flight it is simple to fall off onto any bearing. You don't need to train a vertical launcher.

My thoughts. There is an advantage to being able to rotate the launcher in the horizontal position to facilitate loading rounds by hand, especially if the ship is moving in three dimensions. The launcher can be rotated inboard to the safest alignment for a crew to load.
It can then be rotated to the position that creates the most free deck space and further, if that is not the same as the optimum launch configuration then the launcher can be rotated to ensure the exhaust is vented to a safe zone.

Another possibility is that the launcher could also accomodate cold launches and trained, inclined launches to increase the variety of munitions it can handle.

All pure supposition on my part but it does seem to align with the direction of travel of the article.



....


"In February, DIU put out a call for containerized drone launcher designs that could be employed at sea or on land."

....

I chose to put this here because it seemed to me that this is the type of system that might influence an open concept like the CDC even though the launcher itself could just as easily be applied to the RCDs, the AOPVs or even OSVs and USVs.

Or, for that matter, trucks, railcars and asphalt installations.

 

[Underway]

Not sure what they are hot launching. Angled launch advantages include wings are able to provide lift immediately. Which can increase range. As well its easier to orient on a target if you are already heading in the correct direction. Current Sea Sparrow launchers on US Carriers use angled launchers (so that in the case of a failed launch you don't have a missile land on the flight deck).

Those mini launchers on the ship model, are for JASM. Hellfire missle variant that does launch vertically. They load horizontally.

As far as angling the container... well sure, you can do that. Is the missile designed for angular launch? Is the altitude of that missile more important than range (so launching directly up while its at its most energetic boost phase is an advantage.)

Cold launchers exist. The UK Rapier SAM setup uses CAMM (Land based Sea Ceptor missile) is a cold launch system.