New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Yay missile defence conversation. In a ship contect. First thing lets talk about the fire control problem.

You have to hit a moving object, with a moving projectile going through a moving medium, shot from a moving platform. That's multiple third order equations stacked on top of each other (angular acceleration, rotational acceleration, exact position calculations, predictive position calculations and so on).

To hit that moving object you have to detect, identify, track, localize and then target it before you can shoot it.

With a Ballistic missile a lot of these things are done more easily at different phases of its flight. Launch is pretty easy, it climbs and the math is straight forward. So this is why long range missiles are dangerous as you can protect them during the launch phase using distance.

In its ballistic phase its hard to track and localize as its moving very fast and the course keeps changing... you have to also try a predictive shot on where it might be, such as a crossing target (very hard to lead these sorts of missiles).

In its terminal phase IF you are the target AND you have high angle radar you can probably shoot it down as its flying directly at you. Lower altitudes restrict the speed of ballistic missiles due to how thick the air is, so Mach 5 is probably their max speed IF they are designed for it. But high angle radars are not normally a thing for ships, which is why missiles often have pop up attacks. The speed however is a real problem for a lot of radars as they cannot compute fast enough to get a targeting solution before its to late. A lot of anti ship ballistic missiles have terminal phases where they act more like normal supersonic cruise missiles, because hitting the moving ship is not easy either.

AI can help you learn to fight these (predictive modelling in wargames for example). But new AI isn't going give you a quantum leap in helping you fight the ship, there already are libraries of responses, with most combat management systems will automatically recommend when being attacked by something. Most good CMS can just fight the ship for you if time is an issue. AI on a ship may be able to learn the particulars of that ship over time which is interesting, so it makes better recommendations or optimizes sensors for the crew based on conditions or context.

But its not a magic bullet.

So crossing targets are harder to kill than targets on approach where you know the point of impact, you, and you are aiming backwards along the flight path.

That would suggest that CIWS systems have a higher hit probability than the area defence missiles?

Might that, in turn, suggest that if there is a real aerial threat then the better investment would be short range point defence effectors cued by an extensive sensor system?

 

[childs56]

There is a lot involved in the BMD mission. It is not simply a matter of slapping SM-3 cans into strike length VLS. There is a whole radar calibration exercise that will make your eyes water, plus the training a certification bill for the crew is lengthy and persihable.

Nothing is ever simple if Military is involved.
Was it not part of the overall BMD system to have multiple platforms, land sea and air with launch capabilities controlled by the advance radars of other units. that way you had layer effect?
We are not even close to having a single layer here in Canada let alone a layered effect. But would it not make sense to build any larger ship to be capable of such a task as being a missile truck for these types of things?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Nothing is ever simple if Military is involved.
Was it not part of the overall BMD system to have multiple platforms, land sea and air with launch capabilities controlled by the advance radars of other units. that way you had layer effect?
We are not even close to having a single layer here in Canada let alone a layered effect. But would it not make sense to build any larger ship to be capable of such a task as being a missile truck for these types of things?

Honestly, I don’t know.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yay missile defence conversation. In a ship contect. First thing lets talk about the fire control problem.

You have to hit a moving object, with a moving projectile going through a moving medium, shot from a moving platform. That's multiple third order equations stacked on top of each other (angular acceleration, rotational acceleration, exact position calculations, predictive position calculations and so on).

To hit that moving object you have to detect, identify, track, localize and then target it before you can shoot it.

With a Ballistic missile a lot of these things are done more easily at different phases of its flight. Launch is pretty easy, it climbs and the math is straight forward. So this is why long range missiles are dangerous as you can protect them during the launch phase using distance.

In its ballistic phase its hard to track and localize as its moving very fast and the course keeps changing... you have to also try a predictive shot on where it might be, such as a crossing target (very hard to lead these sorts of missiles).

In its terminal phase IF you are the target AND you have high angle radar you can probably shoot it down as its flying directly at you. Lower altitudes restrict the speed of ballistic missiles due to how thick the air is, so Mach 5 is probably their max speed IF they are designed for it. But high angle radars are not normally a thing for ships, which is why missiles often have pop up attacks. The speed however is a real problem for a lot of radars as they cannot compute fast enough to get a targeting solution before its to late. A lot of anti ship ballistic missiles have terminal phases where they act more like normal supersonic cruise missiles, because hitting the moving ship is not easy either.

AI can help you learn to fight these (predictive modelling in wargames for example). But new AI isn't going give you a quantum leap in helping you fight the ship, there already are libraries of responses, with most combat management systems will automatically recommend when being attacked by something. Most good CMS can just fight the ship for you if time is an issue. AI on a ship may be able to learn the particulars of that ship over time which is interesting, so it makes better recommendations or optimizes sensors for the crew based on conditions or context.

But its not a magic bullet.

star trek scotty discovers his own equation for warp speed transporter - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Underway]

So crossing targets are harder to kill than targets on approach where you know the point of impact, you, and you are aiming backwards along the flight path.

Throw a football at someone running a route and hit them. Now throw a football at somone running directly towards you and hit them. Most of us can easily do the later, not many can do the former. Because the physics of the latter remove a lot of variables and the target keeps getting larger as it comes towards you. Whereas the former its much harder.

That would suggest that CIWS systems have a higher hit probability than the area defence missiles?

Not necessarily. CIWS systems suffer from the ship still taking damage. You just hope the explode-y and burn-y bits from the destroyed missile hit the water and not you.

A defensive missile attacking a target on a straight path to the ship will hit it a high percentage of the time. Missile intercepts on targets that are crossing far from the ship also hit targets a lot of the time as well. But its speed and manouver that make things hard to hit.

BMissiles main advantage is the fact that they are much faster than cruise missiles. If I shoot a cruise missile at a ship 200km away it's going to take 15min to get there. Which means the ship is likely 4-6 nm away from its original position. If I shoot a ballistic missile at that same ship, it's going to be only 1nm away. Which means the ballistic missile doesn't have to search very hard to get me, but a cruise missile has to search, which means I have time to evade it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Throw a football at someone running a route and hit them. Now throw a football at somone running directly towards you and hit them. Most of us can easily do the later, not many can do the former. Because the physics of the latter remove a lot of variables and the target keeps getting larger as it comes towards you. Whereas the former its much harder.


Not necessarily. CIWS systems suffer from the ship still taking damage. You just hope the explode-y and burn-y bits from the destroyed missile hit the water and not you.

A defensive missile attacking a target on a straight path to the ship will hit it a high percentage of the time. Missile intercepts on targets that are crossing far from the ship also hit targets a lot of the time as well. But its speed and manouver that make things hard to hit.

BMissiles main advantage is the fact that they are much faster than cruise missiles. If I shoot a cruise missile at a ship 200km away it's going to take 15min to get there. Which means the ship is likely 4-6 nm away from its original position. If I shoot a ballistic missile at that same ship, it's going to be only 1nm away. Which means the ballistic missile doesn't have to search very hard to get me, but a cruise missile has to search, which means I have time to evade it.

Now, if you are a warehouse, a factory or an airfield.... or a parliament.

 

[Underway]

Now, if you are a warehouse, a factory or an airfield.... or a parliament.

Exactly. You have rediscovered the main advantage of ships. Its that they move. Lol

 

[dapaterson]

Exactly. You have rediscovered the main advantage of ships. Its that they move. Lol

Can't find the GIF of the Simpsons boarding their houseboat and everyone else leaving...

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here's a bit of good news, especially for the Ottawa area which I'm sure will be seeing some Fed Govt layoffs coming soon.

SEA Canada to go on hiring binge as defence contractor opens new plant in Stittsville

SEA Canada business development manager Dudley Malster said the new site will house a mix of offices and manufacturing space where the company will produce torpedo launcher systems and decoy launchers for the next-generation River-class destroyers that will replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s...

obj.ca

SEA Canada to go on hiring binge as defence contractor opens new plant in Stittsville​

 

[Kirkhill]

Exactly. You have rediscovered the main advantage of ships. Its that they move. Lol

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh!.

A floating warehouse!

We could call it A Big Honking Ship!

 

[OldSolduer]

Exactly. You have rediscovered the main advantage of ships. Its that they move. Lol

Gee that's fuckin handy. I guess if they are big enough you can ship stuff across oceans??

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Gee that's fuckin handy. I guess if they are big enough you can ship stuff across oceans??

Aeronautical types get a H..d on when they see a plane that can carry 100 tons of cargo. Your (very) average medium container ship carries around 50,000 tons. I won't even get into the capacity of panamax or superpanamax ones.

 

[Kirkhill]

And ships can be slippery things to come to grips with.

Katie and Estai cross my mind.

 

[Nvlgzr]

And from Cdr Sal: Davie & Bollinger will build new icebreakers. Looks like Davies recent acquisitions are paying off.

The Superb Finland & USA Icebreaker Deal is Here

faster would be nicer

cdrsalamander.substack.com

 

[suffolkowner]

And from Cdr Sal: Davie & Bollinger will build new icebreakers. Looks like Davies recent acquisitions are paying off.

The Superb Finland & USA Icebreaker Deal is Here

faster would be nicer

cdrsalamander.substack.com

are these ships a derivative of our proposed Medium icebreakers?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Feather in the cap for our NSS and ship designs. also means more spare parts down the road

BREAKING: White House selects Seaspan design for six U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Security Cutters, signs MOU with Davies for five POLAR100 as well.

Construction to begin immediately in both Finland and the United States with eventual transition to full production in the United States

noahscornerofrandomstuff.substack.com

 

[Nvlgzr]

are these ships a derivative of our proposed Medium icebreakers?

It’s not quite clear but It appears that:

• 2 ships will be built by Helsinki Shipyard based upon a ship they have built for past customers and that Davie will build 3 of the same in their newly acquired US yard.
• 2 ships will be built by Rauma in Finland based upon a Seaspan/Aker design and Bollinger will build 4 of the same.

 

[Czech_pivo]

are these ships a derivative of our proposed Medium icebreakers?

It’s not quite clear but It appears that:

• 2 ships will be built by Helsinki Shipyard based upon a ship they have built for past customers and that Davie will build 3 of the same in their newly acquired US yard.
• 2 ships will be built by Rauma in Finland based upon a Seaspan/Aker design and Bollinger will build 4 of the same.

So 2 separate classes of ships?

 

[Nvlgzr]

So 2 separate classes of ships?

It would appear that the USA is taking the threat of foreign ships in their waters extremely serious, that they are taking measures to field them as quickly as possible. They recently converted the Aiviq for Coast guard duties after we turned it down. Using an old car analogy; they’re shifting from first to overdrive while we just shifted into 3rd.

 

[Lumber]

And from Cdr Sal: Davie & Bollinger will build new icebreakers. Looks like Davies recent acquisitions are paying off.

The Superb Finland & USA Icebreaker Deal is Here

faster would be nicer

cdrsalamander.substack.com

From his post:
"My primary critique here is that they are poorly armed. They need to be at least wired for SeaRAM and at least four ASCM. That 25mm should be 57mm or 76mm."

Buddy has watched The Bedford Incident a few too many times, methinks.