AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)

[Cloud Cover]

WRT a land attack capabilty, is the rather limited bang even worth the buck? I suppose if needed, the Harpoon could fulfill the role, albet in a less effective way the the Tomahawk. I would be greatly surprised if we ever needed the deep penetration capability of the Tomahawk. IIRC, the Harpoon is possesses the requisite precision withour having to add a whole new weapons system. [I recognize the huge difference in payloads]

Perhaps an armed UAV is a better solution for strikes on land targets from sea based assets.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think Harpoon2 would be the more economical way to go as we would not lose a valuable anti ship missile and if need be we could have a capabilty to engage shore targets without the added cost of an additional weapon system.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Thats the one. {harpoonII}.

IIRC this is also the JDAM weapon can be fired from a torpedo tube, an aircraft, a specially configured truck, certain VLS systems and the standard 4 tube configuration. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Thats the one. {harpoonII}.

IIRC this is also the JDAM weapon can be fired from a torpedo tube, an aircraft, a specially configured truck, certain VLS systems and the standard 4 tube configuration.    

I take it that means it has at least a secondary GPS guidance system?




M.    ???

 

[Mortar guy]

Yeah JDAM and Harpoon II are two very different things.

On another note the Mk41 VLS (which the Tribals have) can fire a weapon called the NTACMS (Naval Tactical Missile System) which is a navalized ATACMS missile the US army and others uses in the MLRS. It has a range of 300km (plus or minus) and can carry bomblets, a unitary warhead or BAT submunitions. Now NTACMS was only ever a prototype but I don't think it would take much to revive the concept.

Also, the SCALP Navale/SCALP EG cruise missiles might be another option we could look at if we don't want to go all out with the TacTom

MG

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Mortar Guy I think it would be something worth looking into at least.

 

[Cloud Cover]

On another note the Mk41 VLS (which the Tribals have) can fire a weapon called the NTACMS (Naval Tactical Missile System) which is a navalized ATACMS missile the US army and others uses in the MLRS. It has a range of 300km (plus or minus) and can carry bomblets, a unitary warhead or BAT submunitions. Now NTACMS was only ever a prototype but I don't think it would take much to revive the concept.

Also, the SCALP Navale/SCALP EG cruise missiles might be another option we could look at if we don't want to go all out with the TacTom

I don't doubt all this ... the question would therefore turn to whether the cost is worth the effort and in turn, would the effort produce the desired results? This TacTom weapon and related systems are very expensive ...  but if there is a better mousetrap that is cheaper, , then maybe the decision makers are factoring this into their latest plans. [or... not :].

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Which was my reasoning for the Harpoon2...beyond some software and maybe some hardware changes the Halifax class is already fitted for the Harpoon, no reason why the 2 could not be procured.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Which was my reasoning for the Harpoon2...beyond some software and maybe some hardware changes the Halifax class is already fitted for the Harpoon, no reason why the 2 could not be procured.

Ex, out of curiosity for the Tribal/CPF replacement would go to the SM-2 as your base missile or the ESSM and why?

Thanks,




M. 

 

[Mortar guy]

Cdn Blackshirt,

I know you're not asking me but I would definitely have to go with the SM2/SM6 family in the Mk41 VLS (Strike Size). The reason for this is that a Canadian TF would be self-sufficient in terms of AAD and we would have a rudimetary counter-TBM capability. Besides with the Mk41 you can still carry ESSM for situations where the air threat is less but you cannot launch SM2 from an ESSM-only launcher (i.e. Mk48). Plus with the Strike Sized Mk 41 (as opposed to the Tactical Sized VLS we have on the Tribals IIRC) you can launch TacTom. Out Tribals could not launch TacTom with their current VLS, if I am not mistaken.

Regards,

MG

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Cdn Blackshirt,

I know you're not asking me but I would definitely have to go with the SM2/SM6 family in the Mk41 VLS (Strike Size). The reason for this is that a Canadian TF would be self-sufficient in terms of AAD and we would have a rudimetary counter-TBM capability. Besides with the Mk41 you can still carry ESSM for situations where the air threat is less but you cannot launch SM2 from an ESSM-only launcher (i.e. Mk48). Plus with the Strike Sized Mk 41 (as opposed to the Tactical Sized VLS we have on the Tribals IIRC) you can launch TacTom. Out Tribals could not launch TacTom with their current VLS, if I am not mistaken.

Regards,

MG

I know what the SM-2, SM-3 and SM-4 are....but what are the SM-5 and SM-6?




M.  ???

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ex, out of curiosity for the Tribal/CPF replacement would go to the SM-2 as your base missile or the ESSM and why?

I would go with the Standards. Why? Range for one. Whats the sense of constantly shooting down missiles with your Sea Sparrow and ESSM when you have a chance to shoot down the platform carrying the missile? Otherwise once the aircraft is refueled and rearmed and the crew has their Timmies they can have another go at you. That is if you are still afloat. :/

With Standards if you have anyone ashore or are escoring any other unit you can protect them. Sea Sparrow is a Point defense missile which means good for protection of your own unit. ESSM is a little better with range but you would run into the same problem.

 

[Mortar guy]

SM6 is also known as the ERAM (Extended Range Active Missile) which is a further development of the SM2 Block IV missile. It uses an active seeker from the AMRAAM missile and various other improvements. The US Navy will eventually replace its SM2 IV with the SM6 so it would make sense for us to do the same.

Here is some info on SM6 http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-6.htm


MG

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Very cool....

Thanks guys.



Matthew. 

 

[NavyShooter]

Hey gang,

So we seem to be running around capabilities and makeup of an ideal fleet of ships that I don't personally think we'll ever see.

I'm going to suggest something, and it might scare you, but I do not really think that the Canadian Navy is going to end up buying a whole fleet of new ships.

What's likely to happen is that we'll get some sort of bastardized together multi-role tanker and troop transport that is ideal for neither role.

The CPF's are not likely to be replaced anytime soon, and the 280's will most likely be replaced hull for hull with the above multi-role ship.

The Navy will likely have to make do with the ESSM's mounted on CPF's, and whatever self-defense armament (Most likely CIWS) would be fitted to the Transports/AOR. 

I don't think that there's a political will to create a Canadian Amphibious warfare group designed to go into harm's way.  There is no precedent in the past decade for the need of that either.  The transports will be there to bring Canadian Strykers/Trucks/AVGPs, etc into a friendly/controlled port where they can be safely unloaded. 

And y'know what?  We'll carry on thanking our lucky stars to still have a military, and our jobs, and we'll make do with whatever the government gives us, just like we always do.  The tools are not ideal, but we make do with what we have.

I guess I'm getting cynical now, but that's just the way I see it....

However, all that said, in an ideal world, yes, a new AAW ship with AEGIS capability would be a good thing, getting a couple for each coast, plus a command ship, plus AOR's, plus the Amphibious ships would be great....and having the ability to support our troopies ashore with NGS either missile or gun, plus provide AAW cover for them, that'd be awesome.  But then reality sets in, and I know that would all just be a pipe dream.

NavyShooter

 

[Mortar guy]

I don't disagree with you at all Shooter but I just have a few points:

1) It doesn't have to be AEGIS. There are other (cheaper) options out there that are almost as capable. We (Canada) took part in the development of the APAR which was once planned to be the new radar for the CPFs as part of their mid-life upgrade. Another option would be SEAPAR which is a lighter smaller version of APAR. Either of these radars could be used in new ships to keep the costs down.

2) It doesn't have to be a friggin huge Arleigh Burke DDG. For some reason, whenever people talk about the CADRE project they immediately think of the Arleigh Burke or DDX (i.e. 9,000 tons displacement) sized ships the Yanks have/will have. These ships are massive and are more like mini-cruisers than destroyers. Rather than the 120% solution, maybe we need something more like our allies that is not as big and is therefore cheaper. The UK Type 45; Spanish F-100; German F124; and French/Italian Horizon classes are all examples of smaller ships (5,000-7,500 tons) with phased array radars and VLS missiles that would fit the bill nicely.

3) The ship does not have to be the jack of all trades. If the new JSS can carry 4 helicopters (vice 3 for Protecteur), does the CADRE ship really need to be able to operate 2 helicopters? Also, if the JSS has good C2 and lots of room for staff etc., do we really need to have a C2 capability in CADRE? I would say no to both these things. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to design large, expensive, do-it-all ships  when smaller, cheaper ships will do the trick.

4) A Canadian amphibious capability does not mean we need a whole ESG with and LHD/LPD/LSD trio. All we need is one (maybe two but lets not get ahead of ourselves) amphibious ship of the size/type of the British Albion. Think about it - we don't have a big enough army to be forming and sustaining amphibious task groups of that size. Right now our army is geared towards sustaining two Battle Groups on operations at any one time. So, that means that we couldn't fill more than two of these ships at any one time without the government mobilizing the militia! Therefore, the most likely scenario is that our one LPD will be used to ferry kit to theatres (like Bonaventure in the good ol' days). Or, a less likely scenario would see us putting a small Battle Group on this ship and floating it around the north atlantic or medditeranean waiting for something to happen. Anyway, all this to say that maybe we don't need a very big amphibious capability.

Thar ye be! The $0.02 of an Army guy about Navy stuff.

Alex

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Have to disagree with you on quite a few of your points Navy Shooter.
The single hull surface combatant project is still being discussed and with the new talk about more and more of a littoral role for the navy will most likely be implemented, unfortunately not for quite some time. Within the nextr couple of years I have no doubts this will be implemented.

Mortar guy there is no CADRE program. CADRE got too big and too expensive to continue. All the good stuff from CADRE was carried over into the the new surface combatant program you will see implemented (ideally) around 2015-2020. Alos why would you bring a JSS for flagship duties when one is not required. A warship designed for it is better for the job and more appropriate not to mention more economical for the tasking.

 

[NCRCrow]

The US will never give us AEGIS technology in 10 x pi years. Ask the Japanese and Taiwan, they asked and were refused.

We are still hammering out bugs in our own CCS. Aegis training would be another 20 years.

I think we bought APAR.

I know Thailand is looking to sell its pocket carrier (multi-role) the Chakri Nareubet, lets take that and make it better. It would be perfect for the Joint dream.

Crow

 

[Cloud Cover]

The US will never give us AEGIS technology in 10 x pi years. Ask the Japanese and Taiwan, they asked and were refused.

The Japanese Kongo class is an improved AEGIS platform.*

In addition to that, South Korea is building a class of AEGIS destroyers, and Australia will probably build or buy AEGIS.   As for Canada, it's a question of trust ... why would the US permit a country like Canada to have such a system if we are not willing to use it to defend our own airspace. [think TBMD and BMD]

*For example, see hazegray [sorry for not linking, but Andy does not like deep linking to his site.]

 

[STONEY]

One would think that if Norway, Spain, Japan, Korea & Australia can aquire Aegis that Canada wouldn't have any problem being able to get it also. Weather our beloved Gov. thinks we could afford it, is another question.  Methinks a vessel like the German f124 AAW frigate would more suit our budget.

As for APAR , even though Canada was one of the countries developing it , has not aquired it because it can't be fitted to our ships as it makes them too topheavy affecting stability. Smart move huh!!! spending money developing something we can't use. Maybe the Tribal replacement, if we ever get it will have it, need i say the F-124 has APAR, SM-2,ESSM, HARPOON etc.

Has anyone noted that the Amphibious Assault Carrier HMS Ocean was built for a cost comparable to that of a Type-23 Frigate, carry's 800 troops, assault helo's, helo gunships , vehicle's, artillery etc. has side and stern loading ramps and its own landing barges. One could have 3 or 4 of them for the price of 1 SanAntonio class vessel.

In any case we must keep in mind that if DND decided today to fast track any of the options discussed on this tread it would be well into the next decade before they became fact. In Any race with DND prorcurment lets face it the snail would win.

Cheers