Continental Defence Corvette

[Colin Parkinson]

I only see a reduction in RCD's if they have something else to replace them with, so perhaps 6x RCD, 6x Frigate of some type and unknown number of CDC's

 

[Czech_pivo]

Huge CMS 330 contract with Germany.

Huge sumbmarine contract with Germany.

Canada partnered with Germany on GBAD.

See the pattern?

Germany and GBAD, did I miss something?

 

[Lumber]

Germany and GBAD, did I miss something?

Nevermind, that was Lockheed Martin US. Partnered with Diehl on PAC-3s.

 

[oldcpu]

The WarZone now also has an article on the GMF 140 Rheinmetall warship frigate/destroyer concept.

From that article:

A key feature of the design is its integration of U.S.-sourced combat systems and sensors. Rheinmetall says the frigate is designed around the AEGIS combat system and can accommodate multiple U.S.-sourced radar options capable of detecting, tracking, and engaging conventional air threats, hypersonic weapons, and ballistic missiles.

For customers seeking an alternative combat management architecture, the company says the GMF 140 can also be configured with Lockheed Martin’s CMS330 combat management system, providing an open and scalable architecture capable of integrating both U.S. and European sensors and weapons.

...

In terms of size and capability, the GMF 140 sits squarely in the same category as the now-canceled U.S. Constellation class frigate, British Type 26, and the Franco-Italian FREMM, but with a different emphasis.

....

Rheinmetall’s reference to a procurement project in North America is interesting, pointing to either Canada or the United States.

As it stands, Canada has already selected the River class destroyer (based on the Type 26), so Rheinmetall would be relying here on a future tranche or a follow-on requirement.

....

In the United States, the Constellation class frigate program was terminated last year, and it was announced that the National Security Cutter design will serve as the basis of a new U.S. Navy frigate program that is named FF(X). Introducing an entirely new design into that program would seem highly unlikely, but the appearance of the GMF 140 does suggest that Rheinmetall has identified a gap in the market between the new FF(X) and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer, with a VLS capacity and level of capability matching that.

----

I think its pretty clear, this is not intended to be a corvette, but rather its aimed at a much larger warship requirement.

 

[Underway]

OK lets all take a breath here.

Rheinmetall just this year... in March... entered the naval shipbuilding market with the purchase of NVL (Naval Vessels Lursen).

You'll note then that this is their first ever ship design in the new company. So what's the motivation here? Marketing plain and simple.

Lots of shipyards when drumming up interest put out designs for projects that don't exist, or rumours of projects or just to show that they can build stuff. Hell, Vard Marine keeps pumping out corvette designs and started well before the CDC was a thought, only because they knew the MCDV's were being retired.

Their choice of combat system makes sense because that's the same system going on the Type 127 frigate (the 12000 ton air defence monstrosity) and NVL has a place in that program. Its going to be a US radar with AEGIS and CMS330.

I do not see anything regarding Canada at this time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Would you rather see 3 less Rivers but 2-3 more CDC’s and 2-3 more subs?

I'd sacrifice 2 rivers for 2 more JSS.

 

[Maxman1]

Their choice of combat system makes sense because that's the same system going on the Type 127 frigate (the 12000 ton air defence monstrosity) and NVL has a place in that program. Its going to be a US radar with AEGIS and CMCMS330.

Speaking of the F127, maybe we should join in on that for four or five, or more. By size and AAW role, it would probably have to be designated a cruiser.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'd sacrifice 2 rivers for 2 more JSS.

I see the logic in that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I see the logic in that.

I don’t.

The number “15” for RCDs is not plucked out of thin air. There is real, actual operational research behind it, based upon our operational tasks.

For once, let’s do things properly.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don’t.

The number “15” for RCDs is not plucked out of thin air. There is real, actual operational research behind it, based upon our operational tasks.

For once, let’s do things properly.

Yes, I understand that as well - 9 and 6 across the 2 coasts.

Does 2 JSS - 1 and 1 across the 2 coasts have any logic to it?

Someone is making the decision to have the capability to be able to have 1 JSS on each coast available virtually at all times, which gives us the ability to sail a 'proper' Task Force at any time on both coasts. Does the ability to have 3 and 2 Rivers available at all times (not looking at the CDC's in this mix), out weigh the option of always have a JSS available on each coast at all times?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t.

The number “15” for RCDs is not plucked out of thin air. There is real, actual operational research behind it, based upon our operational tasks.

For once, let’s do things properly.

That's fair. Why do we have to trade ? 15 RCDs and 4 JSS is the best option IMHO.

Perhaps we're too used to having to compromise.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's fair. Why do we have to trade ? 15 RCDs and 4 JSS is the best option IMHO.

Perhaps we're too used to having to compromise.

I keep hearing that 2 more AORs will be ordered in the early 2030s. When we have the fleet size and the crewing available to justify two more.

 

[Stoker]

I keep hearing that 2 more AORs will be ordered in the early 2030s. When we have the fleet size and the crewing available to justify two more.

I believe and hope that will happen if we get our 15 RCDs and a limited amount of CDC. AOPV's are not factored in to that as that class will probably not RAS anymore.

 

[Kirkhill]

2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032 - Delivery of RCD 1
2033 - Delivery of CPS 1 and 2
2034 - Delivery of RCD 2 and delivery of CPS 3 and 4
2035 - Delivery of RCD 3
2036 - Delivery of RCD 4

11 more RCDs by 2050
8 more CPS by 2040??

When will we be able to sustain a modernized task force?
What will the battlespace look like then?

 

[oldcpu]

2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032 - Delivery of RCD 1
2033 - Delivery of CPS 1 and 2
2034 - Delivery of RCD 2 and delivery of CPS 3 and 4
2035 - Delivery of RCD 3
2036 - Delivery of RCD 4

11 more RCDs by 2050
8 more CPS by 2040??

When will we be able to sustain a modernized task force?
What will the battlespace look like then?

It takes time to build modern warships. Thankfully the ball is now starting to roll.

Perhaps add:
2027 - JSS - Future HMCS Protecteur
2028 - JSS - Future HMCS Preserver
... and frankly IMHO we need more than just two JSS. ... Not to mention a mobile base ship (or two) for the Arctic and the corvettes

The Canadian Coast Guard is now under DND. I think :
2026 (late) - AOPS-7 CCGS Donjek
2027 - AOPS-8 CCGS Sermilik
... and ...
2030 - Heavy Ice breaker CCGS Arpatuuq
2032 - Heavy Ice breaker CCGS Imnaryuaq
....
I think Coast Guard is also trying to procure 6 medium-to-large icebreakers ? and 16 smaller boats to replace other small boats in their aging fleet

... but i could have those wrong.

I am curious how much movement there will be on any Continental Defence Corvette, and the delivery timelines, plus of course, schedule for more JSS and mobile base ship(s).

At present it all seems to be very far off - which I think is the point you make ..... Perhaps the 'upside' (if one can call it that) is it gives the RCN sometime to work on addressing its serious manpower shortage.
.

 

[Kirkhill]

It takes time to build modern warships. Thankfully the ball is now starting to roll.

Perhaps add:
2027 - JSS - Future HMCS Protecteur
2028 - JSS - Future HMCS Preserver
... and frankly IMHO we need more than just two JSS. ... Not to mention a mobile base ship (or two) for the Arctic and the corvettes

The Canadian Coast Guard is now under DND. I think :
2026 (late) - AOPS-7 CCGS Donjek
2027 - AOPS-8 CCGS Sermilik
... and ...
2030 - Heavy Ice breaker CCGS Arpatuuq
2032 - Heavy Ice breaker CCGS Imnaryuaq
....
I think Coast Guard is also trying to procure 6 medium-to-large icebreakers ? and 16 smaller boats to replace other small boats in their aging fleet

... but i could have those wrong.

I am curious how much movement there will be on any Continental Defence Corvette, and the delivery timelines, plus of course, schedule for more JSS and mobile base ship(s).

At present it all seems to be very far off - which I think is the point you make ..... Perhaps the 'upside' (if one can call it that) is it gives the RCN sometime to work on addressing its serious manpower shortage.
.

We are in agreement.

My curiousity has me wondering what miniaturization will bring. We are rapidly advancing the capabilities we can add to ever smaller machines.
In my view that suggests that every structural node, every base, ship, port or other platform will continue to enhance its area of influence.


I just saw an article about yet another CUAS system based on taking down drones with drones.

Nordic Air Defence Demonstrates Radio-Silent K100XR Drone Interceptor

Half a kilogram, 354 km/h, and autonomy as the default rather than the fallback — but no published answer on how a salvo gets allocated.

quwa.org

....

2026 to 2036 with an out date of 2050.
Suppose we compare that to this timeline:
1936 to 1946 with an out date of 2060.
I think the rate of change currently is at least comparable to that of WW2.

I agree we should plan based on available evidence and known knowns.

However, I think we have to stay alive to the possibility that the future may be something else entirely.

....

I strongly feel that we can find analogies in the swing away from battleships towards aircraft (carrier borne, long range patrol and strategic bombers), submarines and the production of small coastal boats. Those craft could be produced in numbers, all of them, were not only cheaper to produce and man than battleships, they could be produced rapidly and, more importantly in my view, they could evolve rapidly to accommodate changing demands. Their operational envelopes could be rapidly expanded.

That is what I see when I see plastic toys flying at 400 kmh for 20 minutes to intercept targets that they have intelligence to identify, target and neutralize.

It is also what I see when I contemplate submersible surfboards powered by fuel cells and armed with a couple of missiles or torpedos, surfboards that can float for a year, or lay dormant on the bottom or transit oceans.

U.S. Navy orders 188 more torpedo-armed mines to hunt submarines

The U.S. Navy has placed its biggest order yet for an underwater weapon nobody has ever seen and designed to sit silently on the seafloor for months, waiting for an enemy submarine to wander close enough to torpedo without warning.

defence-blog.com

Video: Saab test-fires lightweight torpedo from CB 90 and USV - Naval News

FMV, in cooperation with the Swedish Armed Forces and Saab has fired Saab’s Lightweight Torpedo, SLWT, from a CB 90 fast assault craft.

www.navalnews.com

....

I don't see anyone deciding not to make big investments in traditional solutions.
I do see people making a lot small investments that will create new solutions faster than the traditional solutions can be brought to the fight.
I also suspect that the result of all that ceap, rapid, small-scale evolution will result in a radically different Statement Of Requirement in 2036 than what we currently envisage in 2026.

It is entirely possible that our 2026 vision of our 2050 fleet could be staledated by 2036.