Electronics for 280 replacement

[Ex-Dragoon]

Coming over to the darkside then Michael?

We will give you a parrot and an eyepatch.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Logic and process work with both sides of the Force, so you'll not tempt me Mr. Sith.  Well, maybe some of that rum would be nice .....

 

[aesop081]

YARGHHHHHH

 

[Armymatters]

Ok, the design's underlying concept:
We are in short trying to develop an area-AAW frigate/destroyer with secondary anti-submarine and self-defense suite. The ship is designed to be a floatilla/task force "leader" if you will (C2), so having space for passengers or fleet commanders will be required. Long term, long range deployments to areas around the world will be emphasised in the design. Interoperability with key allies (such as the US) and multi-mission capabilites is emphasised in the design. Therefore the basic hardware requirements are as follows:

Martin Marietta's Mk 41 Vertical Launch System
The Mk 41 VLS is the key to the design. The Mk 41 VLS is capable of launching a wide assortment of weapons, including Standard II, Tomahawk, and ASROC. The ship's loadout of weapons (either full load of 48 Standard II's, or some combination of Standard II's, Tomahawks, and ASROC's) is dependent on the mission on which the platform is employed. In short, some modularity with mission profile is already present in the design. The design will use the full sized version of the Mk41, the Mk41 VLS Strike launcher:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

Anti-submarine Warfare
Self defense ASW will be made present in the design. Deployments with this vessel will usually not be solo deployments; another vessel will usually acompany the vessel (usually a CPF) while on deployment. A submarine detection system comprising of a helicopter and ship-borne sonar should be intergrated with the vessel to acomplish this task. If submarines are detected by the vessel, the ability to immediately engage the submarine with weapons is required to eliminate the threat posed by such submarine. The platform and the acompanying helicopter should be armed with anti-submarine torpedoes in both air-launched or torpedo tube launched format, with an optional option to 'lob' a torpedo at distance to a target if the helicopter is not in position to fire on the submarine.
The Ratheyon Mk54 LHT torpedo will be the primary anti-submarine weapon launched from the ship. The torpedo is considered the next NATO standard torpedo, and combines the capability of the Mk50's sensors with the dependable NATO standard Mk46 torpedo's propulsion. The Mk54 LHT torpedo is also going to be the US Navy's primary anti-submarine torpedo, which the usage of the Mk54 in our platform will provide interoperability and support with the Americans.

Countermeasures
Defending against hostile missiles and other munitions launched against the platform or against friendly ships in the area is a required part of the platform's mission. The ship will be equipped with offensive and defensive ECM to deny targeting against the platform or against friendly ships in the area will be necessary for the survival of the platform and any friendlies in the area. The FL 1800 S II ECM suite will provide offensive ECM capability to prevent weapons being fired against the platform while the SeaGnat decoy system will help provide protection against weapons that have been launched against the platform. The twin SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoy's will help provide some anti-torpedo protection by confusing any passively or actively guided torpedo.
A stealthy design will also help provide the platform with some extra protection against hostile weapons as it helps reduce the chance of detection by radar. As such, the elimination of right angles and clutter on the upper deck and superstructure is recommended to help reduce the radar signature of the platform.

Surface sensors
Since area AAW is emphasised in the design, a highly capable multi-function radar set is obviously needed. The Lockheed AN/SPY-1D (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) radar suite, or the Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L long range air/surface search radar) radar suite or the BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search) radar suite fills the role of a long range, highly capable radar suite. All systems have a minimum detection range of over 200km, which would throw out a large air defense bubble around the ship, giving ample time to mount a response to any threat that is detected.
An IRST (Infra-red search and track) system will also be intergrated for closer in air defense detection. The Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system (as to be intergrated with the CPF in FELEX) is an excellent choice to fill in the close range detection.

Anti-Surface Warfare
Self-defense long range ASuW capability is provided by the 8 Boeing Harpoon missile intergrated with the platform. The missiles will provide anti-shipping capability to protect the platform and any friendly vessel nearby against hostile warships.
The single OTO-Melara 76mm gun will provide additional closer in anti-air capability, while the caliber of the gun will also allow anti-surface and some ground shelling capabilites to be present in the design.
For small boat protection, a couple of small caliber automatic weapons will be provided by either the Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns. Both systems are considered the premier of small caliber autocannon's in the Western inventory.

Air Defence
Air Defence is provided by the Standard II missiles in the Block IIIB standard launched out of the Mk41 VLS. The missile will provide long range anti-air defense capability, and the Mk41 VLS will provide the platform with the ability to quickly engage multiple air threats with rapid fire missiles.
Additional closer in/point air defense is provided by the single OTO-Melara 76mm gun as described above.
For last ditch defense against missiles and airplanes, the Phalanx IB and the Rolling Airframe Missile. With both CIWS, point defense of the entire ship from a variety of targets will be provided.

I think I covered all my bases, if there is anything I missed or needs clarification, please, do tell me.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but aren't the Aussies in the midst of designing an Arleigh Burke-light (by Gibbs & Cox) that perhaps we could cooperate on? 

My understanding is they want to simplify the design and systems to reduce the crew size down to 180 from the Burke's standard 340+, reduce weight from 9600 tonnes to approximately 8000, reduce VLS from 96 to 64 and improve the helicopter capacity to accommodate the NH-90.


M.  ???

 

[Armymatters]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but aren't the Aussies in the midst of designing an Arleigh Burke-light (by Gibbs & Cox) that perhaps we could cooperate on? 

My understanding is they want to simplify the design and systems to reduce the crew size down to 180 from the Burke's standard 340+, reduce weight from 9600 tonnes to approximately 8000, reduce VLS from 96 to 64 and improve the helicopter capacity to accommodate the NH-90.


M.  ???

Depending on how you look at it, yes, but the Aussie government hasn't acutally ordered the ships yet or selected the design, but design has focused on what can be termed a Burke mini. The Spanish Alvaro de Bazán class (F100) frigate is the official alternative. The German F124 Sachsen frigate was eliminated last year:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/designer-selected-for-australian-air-warfare-destroyers/index.php#more

 

[Michael OLeary]

Ok, the design's underlying concept:
We are in short trying to develop an area-AAW frigate/destroyer with secondary anti-submarine and self-defense suite. The ship is designed to be a floatilla/task force "leader" if you will (C2), so having space for passengers or fleet commanders will be required. Long term, long range deployments to areas around the world will be emphasised in the design. Interoperability with key allies (such as the US) and multi-mission capabilites is emphasised in the design. Therefore the basic hardware requirements are as follows:

[blah, blah, blah deleted]

I think I covered all my bases, if there is anything I missed or needs clarification, please, do tell me.

Armymatters, please do not presume that you have presented a 'complete argument.'

Take your head out of the technology-worship sphere for a minute.  You have only described (again) the ship you have 'designed' and stroked the verbiage on the technology you're already listed.

You have yet to address the question.

Why?

Why do we "need" this particular ship?

Why does it need those particular capabilities?

Where does it fit in a plan based on national defence policy, mission and roles for naval forces, and structure and management of a national fleet?

Where does this fit in with the rest of this mythical navy you have managed to completely ignore while designing your "perfect" personal idea of a new ship.

Step back from your list of parts, and cut-and-pasted characteristics, and explain what task(s) we need ship(s) to do.  Please do not limit yourself to the tasks you forsee your personal ship doing.  Then, from assessing what scale and priority each task has, which ones might be required simultaneously and on what frequency.  Where in the world might these happen and under what organizational structures (NATO, UN, uni-lateral, etc.)?  Eventually you will start to see that one big, expensive, all-singing, all-dancing vessel (or a small number of them) might NOT be the best solution for flexibility and efficient addressing of all assigned and implied (possible) tasks.

Stop selling a design without reference to what we might actually need it for.

You are doing what we call "situating the estimate" - i.e., starting with your preferred solution and then trying to manage the argument to defend it.

 

[Armymatters]

Alright, here we go again:

Roles

The required roles of a replacement for the Tribals will be narrowed down to area-air defense, command and control, and secondary anti-submarine warfare, for an direct replacement of the current Tribals. The 1994 Defence White Paper called for the maintenance of “multi-purpose, combat-capable” sea forces able to carry out a wide range of tasks, including:

conduct surveillance and control of Canadian maritime areas of jurisdiction;
• support the operations of other government departments in fishery protection and other constabulary tasks;
• maintain a task group on each coast for the defence of North America under the long-standing bilateral defence arrangements, and that Canada’s maritime forces be interoperable with those of the United States;
• maintain one ship one each coast available to deploy on UN missions as part of the ‘vanguard’ force;
• participate in the NW Pacific naval exercises, the Pacific Rim (RIMPAC) series as an expression of continued Canadian commitment to Asia-Pacific security;
• support NATO operations at sea by making available a ‘naval task group comprised of up to four combatants (destroyers, frigates or submarines) and a support ship, with appropriate maritime air support,’ as well as continue to provide one ship for the Standing Naval Force Atlantic and, on occasion, another ship with the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean;
• provide a mine countermeasures capability, relying on the Naval Reserve to man the ships; and
• maintain sufficient sea lift capability to support land force operations.
- From the 1994 Defence White Paper
Adding warships that are capable of multi-mission operational capabilites will enhance the missions layed out under the 1994 Defence White Paper

Area-AAW: The CF has identified a need for a area AAW frigate/destroyer to replace in the future, the current Tribals which are due to be retired in 2010. The current Tribals are marginal in terms of their area air-defence capability, due to their dated radar set, and the fact that they were originally to be a stop-gap measure only. Area air-defence capabilites is considered by the CF as part of “Canada’s core naval capabilities”, and investment in a new platform for area-AAW is only natural in order to maintain area-AAW capabilites. The ability to throw a large air defence 'bubble' over CF vessels and Allied vessels is part of the area air-defence requirements, and the associated equipment and weapons should be included in any future design.

C&C (Command and Control): The current Tribals also have been tasked for task force command operations, with either other Canadian warships or with Allied task forces (American or NATO). Therefore, space for extra passengers (such as task force commanders) and the acompanying equipment for C&C should be installed in any replacement of the current Tribals to maintain and enhance the current C&C capabilities of the Navy. Over recent years, the Canadian Navy regularly commanded multinational naval formations, mainly the NATO Standing Naval Force Atlantic (as with the current Athabaskan deployment as task force leader of Standing Naval Force Atlantic). Such a design will help maintain under the 1994 White Paper the follows roles as dictated by the White Paper:
- maintain a task group on each coast for the defence of North America under the long-standing bilateral defence arrangements (The current Tribals operate as task force and fleet leader on the Pacific and Atlantic coast).
- maintain one ship one each coast available to deploy on UN missions as part of the ‘vanguard’ force (having C&C capabilites will allow such Canadian participation in such UN missions to be the leader of the force, enhancing Canada's role on the world stage)

In the present and in the future, Canadian Naval policy has been leaning more towards an internationalist policy, in which Canadian warships are frequently intergrated with American carrier groups, command of NATO naval forces, etc. Such an internationalist policy will require that Canada make the necessary investment for warships with C&C capabilites built in from the start.

The task force concept for the Canadian Forces is essential for the ability to meet the spectrum of tasks that will be encountered by the Canadian Navy. As the Navy League of Canada has stated in 2001 under the document, Canadian Naval Requirements for the 21st Century:

As explained, the task group concept is fundamental to being able to meet the full spectrum of tasks; furthermore, the requirement to have Canadian warships integrated into US and other formations is a tasking of the highest political order for those ships are the embodiment of a sound foreign policy. For these reasons, replacing the Tribal-class destroyers is a very high priority. Shifting to a policy whereby destroyers rather than frigates undertake the majority of the international commitments as well as serve as task group leaders justifies replacing the existing four destroyers with eight new ships of a design that is compatible with the US Navy and with the majority of NATO ships. In this, it would make sense to consider adopting an American design, such as the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, provided it can be done quickly before those ships become obsolescent. If this cannot be done, steps should be taken to ensure that any new design remains fully interoperable with US and NATO naval forces..

ASW: The Canadian Navy has often been tasked in the past with anti-submarine warfare, a requirement that extends from the Cold War. However, with the current world enviroment, ASW is still essential to the Canadian Forces, as most nations that have a coast on an ocean has a navy, possibily with a conventional submarine. A secondary ASW capability is therefore required to protect any future design, and add to the protection of any Canadian or Allied task forces.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, the core of your premise is the contents of the 1994 White Paper ......

Have you considered anything newer for force capability projections, or future force requirements based on current and projected threats?

 

[Cloud Cover]

You have to get the crew size down to less than 200.

then launch her:  http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx

 

[Armymatters]

You have to get the crew size down to less than 200.

then launch her:  http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx

We can get something as capable as our current Halifax class frigates down to a crew of 70, excluding the air wing:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/formidable/
Meet RSS Formidable; a variant of the French La Fayette class stealth frigate. Brand new too, launched only in 2004, and is due for full service in 2007.

Michael, I have considered some other things as well: shore based threats, due to the increasing emphasis on littoral combat, escort of future CF sea lifters, and possibility landing ships, and of course, show of force missions with other CF or Allied ships. Also, the ever prevalant task force command by the CF in support of our foreign policy objectives is also important.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Michael, I have considered some other things as well: shore based threats, due to the increasing emphasis on littoral combat, escort of future CF sea lifters, and possibility landing ships, and of course, show of force missions with other CF or Allied ships. Also, the ever prevalant task force command by the CF in support of our foreign policy objectives is also important.

And yet, you still manage to keep coming around to your singular favourite 'solution.'

If you have actually considered these things, and wish to pretend you have developed a complete case, then perhaps we should have started by seeing that estimate.  Try starting with development of requirements, from scratch, not reverse engineered from preferred technology combinations.  Then develop the various possible options of fleet structures and component ship types that will meet those requirements from a fleet perspective.  Then, and only then, focus on the capabilities of each of the individual hulls within an overall, and longterm, fleet plan.  Don't forget planning and development of manning strategies, support infrastructure, and training facilities - the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."

Once again, you've have jumped to declaring victory in designing your preferred piece of hardware without any substantial mention of where it fits in the real picture.  Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?

 

[aesop081]

And yet, you still manage to keep coming around to your singular favourite 'solution.'

If you have actually considered these things, and wish to pretend you have developed a complete case, then perhaps we should have started by seeing that estimate.  Try starting with development of requirements, from scratch, not reverse engineered from preferred technology combinations.  Then develop the various possible options of fleet structures and component ship types that will meet those requirements from a fleet perspective.  Then, and only then, focus on the capabilities of each of the individual hulls within an overall, and longterm, fleet plan.  Don't forget planning and development of manning strategies, support infrastructure, and training facilities - the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."

Once again, you've have jumped to declaring victory in designing your preferred piece of hardware without any substantial mention of where it fits in the real picture.  Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?

I'm certainly not....anymore.  Too encompassing, too much "allsiging -all dancing" for me.  I'm not a naval expert, or even a naval anything but what i do know is this is too much for the Canadian navy.  Wishful thinking and nothing more.. Armymatters, you based yourself on the 1994 white paper......i hate to braje it to you academic-only mind but the 1994 paper was dead before it was even published.  You are a very smart individual, i will agree to that but you have never or ever will face the reality of the field....that is the downfall of anything you say ........sorry  but there it is !!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Don't you wonder why the professionals who work with the technology, and with force and equipment development processes aren't jumping aboard your bandwagons?

We also get tired of his implied tone we don't know what we are talking about. I have given up in trying to pass on what I know and experiences to this person because otherwise his Janes knows best...

 

[Journeyman]

- the package isn't complete just by declaring "let's buy this ship."

...because your name isn't Chretien, and this isn't a CC-144 Challenger deal....yet.  ;D

 

[Armymatters]

I am again throwing out some ideas around, but 2 major roles (area-AAW, and C2) plus two minor roles (ASuW and ASW) for a new warship is more than being reasonable with a design (we can dump land attack as we don't seem to need it). We can purchase off the shelf to speed up procurement and drive down costs, but unless we want to use non-CF standard weapons (such as Exocet and Aster missiles), they will have to be significantly refitted for our needs. Then again, we can probally drive down some costs by landing ASuW (anti-shipping missiles removed, but space for installation remains), landing the ship's torpedo tubes (torpedoes only avaiable on the helicopter, but space remains for installation if needed in the future) so that we only concentrate on 3 roles: area-AAW, C2, and a minor ASW role.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why is ASuW and ASW minor? The navy certainly does not view either as minor.

There are other new classes that use more then just the Exocet and Aster. Have you even looked at Netherlands Karel Doorman class which uses Harpoon/Sea Sparrow, their Jacob van Heemskerck class that uses Harpoon/Sea Sparrow/Standard(albeit SM1), Spain's Alavra de Bazan that uses Harpoon/ESSM/ Standard(SM2), Germany's Sachen with Harpoon/ESSM, Australia's Anzac fitted with Harpoon and Sea Sparrow. Those are just the frigates

Destroyers include Netherlands De Zeven Provincien fitted with harpoon/ESSM/SM2 not to mention the modified Areliegh Burke that Cdn Blackshirt has brought up that the RAN is looking at.

So now tell me Armymatters that these ships are not more then capable to meet our needs and explain to me how we would have to use non-CF weapons as you brought up in your post? Because we use:
1) The Sea Sparrow
2) The Harpoon
3) SM2
4) ESSM we have bought

Hello...the idea of warship is to be able to fight whatever is the threat, not specific threats because you figure landing certain weapon systems makes more sense then having them embarked. Start listening to what people here are trying to tell you vice reading because clearly you haven't learned anything you are reading.
.

 

[aesop081]

Why is ASuW and ASW minor?

+1

embarked. Start listening to what people here are trying to tell you vice reading because clearly you haven't learned anything you are reading.
.

He's doing it in the AF forum too........ :

 

[Armymatters]

I will shut my mouth for now, and throw in the towel, as I admit defeat.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Locked.