- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
I'm sure a certain shipyard on the St. Lawrence would still be awarded a 3 billion contract to Canadianize them, and the public would be "none the wiser." Whats more, some people would still try and claim sea pay.
AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,940
- Points
- 1,160
And on the subject of continuing to rub salt in wounds:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
The Australians are at it again.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
The Australians are at it again.
- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
Is that Korean ship a Gibbs and Cox design?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Kirkhill said:
Since the link just goes to the main page and the link will eventually disappear, here is the content of the release:
- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
Rather than start a new thread, I thought i would drag up this one. Anyway, I found this little paragraph very interesting about the Type 45 Daring Destroyer currently being built by the UK:
"The initial design of the Type 45 is clearly optimised for air warfare and there is deliberately considerable potential and opportunity to add other capabilities and fit a wider range of missile types. Due largely to financial constraints it's likely that the early ships will be completed without Harpoon SSM's, Stingray torpedoes, ILMS, or a capability to operate the Merlin helicopter. However the potential to fit them if needed will be there, and their absence reflects a realistic prioritisation of the available funding."
The above is from the navy-matters web site. No link provided to the exact page as the site owner does not like deep linking, but here is the main page: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/.
I guess we aren't the only ones with funding problems, but given the tiny size of our Navy I don't think it would be wise for Canada to ever consider building a new ship without all of those capabilities. Now I know our current AAD does not carry SSM, but I would think any future Canadian build would use the MK 41 VLS, which means the Tomahawk could be loaded- as long as the appropriate targetting equipment is installed. And the Harpoon should be ubiquitous in the Canadian Navy- not just a 330 phenomenon.
Building a 700 million dollar destroyer for the RN that cannot operate the Merlin makes me think that it will likely carry the Lynx.
"The initial design of the Type 45 is clearly optimised for air warfare and there is deliberately considerable potential and opportunity to add other capabilities and fit a wider range of missile types. Due largely to financial constraints it's likely that the early ships will be completed without Harpoon SSM's, Stingray torpedoes, ILMS, or a capability to operate the Merlin helicopter. However the potential to fit them if needed will be there, and their absence reflects a realistic prioritisation of the available funding."
The above is from the navy-matters web site. No link provided to the exact page as the site owner does not like deep linking, but here is the main page: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/.
I guess we aren't the only ones with funding problems, but given the tiny size of our Navy I don't think it would be wise for Canada to ever consider building a new ship without all of those capabilities. Now I know our current AAD does not carry SSM, but I would think any future Canadian build would use the MK 41 VLS, which means the Tomahawk could be loaded- as long as the appropriate targetting equipment is installed. And the Harpoon should be ubiquitous in the Canadian Navy- not just a 330 phenomenon.
Building a 700 million dollar destroyer for the RN that cannot operate the Merlin makes me think that it will likely carry the Lynx.
- Reaction score
- 7,940
- Points
- 1,160
W601
IIRC the RN is in the process of reworking their Lynx fleet to continue to perform the ASW/ASuW roles that they have always done while working off of their older destroyers and frigates. Mediums on vessels of that size being something of a Canadian specialty.
I recall seeing on beedall's site something about the Type 45 being fitted with an outsize (by RN standards) flight deck to accomodate Merlins and possibly even Chinooks so that a platoon/troop of Royal Marines could be deployed. Carrying a full troop on such a vessel was supposed to be something of a back to the future type of innovation.
IIRC the RN is in the process of reworking their Lynx fleet to continue to perform the ASW/ASuW roles that they have always done while working off of their older destroyers and frigates. Mediums on vessels of that size being something of a Canadian specialty.
I recall seeing on beedall's site something about the Type 45 being fitted with an outsize (by RN standards) flight deck to accomodate Merlins and possibly even Chinooks so that a platoon/troop of Royal Marines could be deployed. Carrying a full troop on such a vessel was supposed to be something of a back to the future type of innovation.
- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
The regular version of the daring has 45 extra berths and can flex up to 60 in "austere" conditions. Interestingly, the berths were calssed as 30 RM and 15 "specialists" whatever that means. [ Well, I think weknow what that means]
The Global Cruiser, which nearly doubled the size of the vessel, was shown with a Chinook on the deck, along with UAV's, and a Merlin in the air. IIRC the design was for an understrength company and to put them ashore by air and/or large RIB. I belive the MK 41 and a prototype 155 were shown as fitted. Quite the ship.
The Global Cruiser, which nearly doubled the size of the vessel, was shown with a Chinook on the deck, along with UAV's, and a Merlin in the air. IIRC the design was for an understrength company and to put them ashore by air and/or large RIB. I belive the MK 41 and a prototype 155 were shown as fitted. Quite the ship.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
The Global Cruiser is an interesting project one I wish we would adopt but alas...... The new Single class surface combatant is supposedly as capapble, too bad I will be long out before I get to sail on one.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
I have to jump in here even though I only have the most basic of knowledge of things naval. IMHO the SSC should have the following capabilities:
32 and preferably 64 Mk41 VLS cells for ESSM, SM-2/SM-6 and TacTom. In a perfect world it could also carry the NTACMS (although now defunct) or a navalized version of the GMLRS for naval fire support.
155mm gun firing precision rounds for NFS
8 Harpoon Block II (or follow-on) for ASuW with a decent littoral capability
Phalanx Block 1B x 2
20-30mm stabilized single mounts x 2-4 (in place of .50s on CPFs and Tribals)
Flight deck and hangar for 2 Cyclone sized helicopers as well as a UAV system. One or both of these helos would be configured for troop lift depending on the mission.
A reconfigurable space that can accomodate the following (perhaps containerized like the Stanflex ships?):
- Berths for about 20 along with Ops/Office space for a Task Group commander and his staff
- Berths and storage space for 50-60 troops
- Short term berths (ie really cramped quarters) for up to 100 troops
The ability to quickly launch and recover RHIBs from a stern ramp or well
Active Phased Array Radar and 3D search radar. VDS and bow sonar with mine avoidance capability.
Blah blah blah. You get the point. If this has already been incorporated into the plan for the SSC then I apologize. Good thing I like the sound of my own typing...
Alex
32 and preferably 64 Mk41 VLS cells for ESSM, SM-2/SM-6 and TacTom. In a perfect world it could also carry the NTACMS (although now defunct) or a navalized version of the GMLRS for naval fire support.
155mm gun firing precision rounds for NFS
8 Harpoon Block II (or follow-on) for ASuW with a decent littoral capability
Phalanx Block 1B x 2
20-30mm stabilized single mounts x 2-4 (in place of .50s on CPFs and Tribals)
Flight deck and hangar for 2 Cyclone sized helicopers as well as a UAV system. One or both of these helos would be configured for troop lift depending on the mission.
A reconfigurable space that can accomodate the following (perhaps containerized like the Stanflex ships?):
- Berths for about 20 along with Ops/Office space for a Task Group commander and his staff
- Berths and storage space for 50-60 troops
- Short term berths (ie really cramped quarters) for up to 100 troops
The ability to quickly launch and recover RHIBs from a stern ramp or well
Active Phased Array Radar and 3D search radar. VDS and bow sonar with mine avoidance capability.
Blah blah blah. You get the point. If this has already been incorporated into the plan for the SSC then I apologize. Good thing I like the sound of my own typing...
Alex
- Reaction score
- 10,124
- Points
- 1,260
Mortar guy said:
That is certainly in the line of thinking of USMC "Distributed Operations". Give it the modern stealth treatment, and you could have a few of these prowling off the shore, inserting small combined-arms teams into the littoral and over the shore to accomplish missions. The ship "base" would act as a support platform for these small units with those fancy weapons systems you listed off....
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Mortar guy said:
I think we could do without the 155mm and bring it back to 5 inch that way we could increase the Mk41 cannister loadout to an additional 12-24 cells. That way we can increase our AAD capability and TacTom loadout. With the adoption of 5 inch vice the 155 you could still embark your ERGM shells onboard at much less expense and still have 3 weapon systems dedicated to NGS.
We seem to be going away from VDS with our adoption of towed array.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Ex-Dragoon - noted. I didn't know the 155 took up that much more space than the 5".
Infanteer - What I was thinking for the 50-60 troops on this ship would be very limited DA (raids, demonstrations,NEO (maybe), etc.), boarding parties and targeting/strategic reconnaissance. In the latter case, they could provide the int and TA needed for the NFS. Anyway, not the greatest plan but it may be useful.
Alex
Infanteer - What I was thinking for the 50-60 troops on this ship would be very limited DA (raids, demonstrations,NEO (maybe), etc.), boarding parties and targeting/strategic reconnaissance. In the latter case, they could provide the int and TA needed for the NFS. Anyway, not the greatest plan but it may be useful.
Alex
- Reaction score
- 7,940
- Points
- 1,160
Interesting that Mortar Guy and Ex-Dragoon included Tac-Tom in their loadouts. This weapon of the arch-imperialists has been adopted by the freedom loving and peaceful people of the Netherlands. Can we be far behind?
The VLS system is opening up all sorts of possibilities - in addition to the array of Naval missiles (SAM, SSM and SSuM) the US Navy also looking at incorporating missiles like GMRLS, ATACMS and (my perennial favourite - Netfires).
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16791263.1132760349.Q4SNHcOa9dUAABh6U1k&modele=jdc_34
The VLS system is opening up all sorts of possibilities - in addition to the array of Naval missiles (SAM, SSM and SSuM) the US Navy also looking at incorporating missiles like GMRLS, ATACMS and (my perennial favourite - Netfires).
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16791263.1132760349.Q4SNHcOa9dUAABh6U1k&modele=jdc_34
- Reaction score
- 10,124
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting - the discussion of Canada's new "capital warship" has moved towards brown-water littoral operations with a ship-to-shore ground capability. If we are to achieve the CDS's transformation goals of providing "focused and integrated effects" on "the bubble", perhaps we are indeed on the right track with this.
Obviously, Naval Surface Fire Support is important if we are to undertake "sea-based operations ashore". Precision, as Kirkhill mentioned above, is one important factor. Precision is a useful tool and can be a force multiplier in complex warfighting. However, precision isn't a panacea - as argued in this thread, there are many cases where a well placed munition won't matter, for there are many ways to protect oneself from both the accuracy and the power of precision weapons (this comes out of Biddle's paradigm of Modern System of Force Employment). The other half of the equation is physical mass - physical mass backed by volume. Should a platform like the one being discussed above be able of providing both precision and mass? In the June 05 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, which focuses on Fire Support, Dr William Stearman writes an interesting article for bringing the Iowa class BB's out of mothball. He cites the fact that the Commandant of the USMC has stated that the 5-inch naval gun is insufficient for providing fire support to ground forces and quoting Paul Wolfowitz in saying that a 5-inch shell that flies for 100 miles is still a 5-inch shell.
Anyways, this is not an argument for Canadian Battleships. It is a suggestion that, if we are to pursue CDS transformation initiatives, that both types of naval gunfire may become more important to our capabilities in the future and that we should consider it when thinking about the ship to replace our destroyers.
Cheers,
Infanteer
Obviously, Naval Surface Fire Support is important if we are to undertake "sea-based operations ashore". Precision, as Kirkhill mentioned above, is one important factor. Precision is a useful tool and can be a force multiplier in complex warfighting. However, precision isn't a panacea - as argued in this thread, there are many cases where a well placed munition won't matter, for there are many ways to protect oneself from both the accuracy and the power of precision weapons (this comes out of Biddle's paradigm of Modern System of Force Employment). The other half of the equation is physical mass - physical mass backed by volume. Should a platform like the one being discussed above be able of providing both precision and mass? In the June 05 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, which focuses on Fire Support, Dr William Stearman writes an interesting article for bringing the Iowa class BB's out of mothball. He cites the fact that the Commandant of the USMC has stated that the 5-inch naval gun is insufficient for providing fire support to ground forces and quoting Paul Wolfowitz in saying that a 5-inch shell that flies for 100 miles is still a 5-inch shell.
Anyways, this is not an argument for Canadian Battleships. It is a suggestion that, if we are to pursue CDS transformation initiatives, that both types of naval gunfire may become more important to our capabilities in the future and that we should consider it when thinking about the ship to replace our destroyers.
Cheers,
Infanteer
- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
The rate of fire for a naval gun is significantly higher than that of a land based artillery piece. For example, the Brits use a 4.5" gun for NGS that fires ~ 27 rounds per minute. Now, that is not "barrage mass", but it is a lot of HE if necessary. A typical Naval munitions locker would hold in excess of 500 rounds per gun. The Brit Type 45 Daring holds about 800 rds.
Even our old 3" 70 cal twin mount could pump out over 60 rounds per minute [if the parts didn't fly off the thing and there was an ample supply of spare light bulbs aboardship.] A night shoot, while very rare, was a sight both awesome and terrifying.
Even our old 3" 70 cal twin mount could pump out over 60 rounds per minute [if the parts didn't fly off the thing and there was an ample supply of spare light bulbs aboardship.] A night shoot, while very rare, was a sight both awesome and terrifying.
- Reaction score
- 4,019
- Points
- 1,120
One thing that was discussed yesterday at a meeting we had in the cave with COMFLTLANT was efficiency vs effectiveness. The budget restraints of the 90s forced us to be very efficient, but that reduced our effectiveness considerably in a lot of cases.
That said, the efficiency is unlikely to change quickly (particularly when it comes to getting new surface units) and despite the need to pretty much fast-track the AOR replacement, do you think it's likely that they'll release funds more easily/quickly with less oversight (as is needed to fast-track things) when we're about to see the release of the Gomery report which will probably suggest doing exactly the opposite?
So, that said, new units are likely to take a LONG time to acquire. Meaning that we have to find ways to make our current platforms more effective in meeting the demands placed on them by the new plans the CDS has for us.
The plans seem to include both a littoral and a ground troop support capability that the CPF's were not originally designed for. These ships were designed mainly as an ASW platform for blue-water operations. The fact that they were changed to a "Multi-role" frigate notwithstanding, they were designed in the 80's and built in the 90's when the ASW game was what the Canadian Navy did BEST.
Now we're doing a whole lot more with them, and finding that they're able to do things they weren't designed to do. What's the problem with adding one more thing to that, and adding the hardware to make them a somewhat capable NGS platform??
The shipboard 57mm Bofors is capable of a high rate of fire, but it's still only just over a 2" shell, with very little HE Capacity.
I think I dumped it into this thread a while back, but taking one of the torpedo magazines, removing the torpedoes, and putting in a 120mm turretted auto-mortar (just shy of 5") with a max effective range of around 12 KM would be a very capable system, without losing much in the way of capability for the CPF.
The mortar would have much less recoil than a regular gun, meaning that it would require less strengthening of the ship to fit it in. the Torpedo mag would provide an excellent location for installing the system, and reducing loadout of torpedos by 50% would not really affect us that much. Keeping the tubes but removing the racks for them to allow 120mm palleted storage would allow a huge volume of ammo to be carried too!
This would be a way to add NGS to our fleet NOW (in the short term, with our current platform) allowing us to increase our effectiveness without having to wait a decade for a new class of ship that hasn't even seen a plate laid for the keel yet!
NavyShooter
That said, the efficiency is unlikely to change quickly (particularly when it comes to getting new surface units) and despite the need to pretty much fast-track the AOR replacement, do you think it's likely that they'll release funds more easily/quickly with less oversight (as is needed to fast-track things) when we're about to see the release of the Gomery report which will probably suggest doing exactly the opposite?
So, that said, new units are likely to take a LONG time to acquire. Meaning that we have to find ways to make our current platforms more effective in meeting the demands placed on them by the new plans the CDS has for us.
The plans seem to include both a littoral and a ground troop support capability that the CPF's were not originally designed for. These ships were designed mainly as an ASW platform for blue-water operations. The fact that they were changed to a "Multi-role" frigate notwithstanding, they were designed in the 80's and built in the 90's when the ASW game was what the Canadian Navy did BEST.
Now we're doing a whole lot more with them, and finding that they're able to do things they weren't designed to do. What's the problem with adding one more thing to that, and adding the hardware to make them a somewhat capable NGS platform??
The shipboard 57mm Bofors is capable of a high rate of fire, but it's still only just over a 2" shell, with very little HE Capacity.
I think I dumped it into this thread a while back, but taking one of the torpedo magazines, removing the torpedoes, and putting in a 120mm turretted auto-mortar (just shy of 5") with a max effective range of around 12 KM would be a very capable system, without losing much in the way of capability for the CPF.
The mortar would have much less recoil than a regular gun, meaning that it would require less strengthening of the ship to fit it in. the Torpedo mag would provide an excellent location for installing the system, and reducing loadout of torpedos by 50% would not really affect us that much. Keeping the tubes but removing the racks for them to allow 120mm palleted storage would allow a huge volume of ammo to be carried too!
This would be a way to add NGS to our fleet NOW (in the short term, with our current platform) allowing us to increase our effectiveness without having to wait a decade for a new class of ship that hasn't even seen a plate laid for the keel yet!
NavyShooter
- Reaction score
- 1,697
- Points
- 1,160
Actually, this thread needs a thorough re-read from the beginning. There is much good and useful information contained in it.
Actually most of the the idea's contained in this thread are more based on fantasy than reality and show no knowledge of Naval construction. Canada along with Germany & the Netherlands developed the APAR radar that is used in the German & Dutch air defence frigates but this radar cannot be fitted to our CPF'S because they have already reached there top load limit. If we were to load up our ships with all the toys sugested here they would simply roll over . In order to put the MK41 on the Tribals they had to remove their 5" Gun(which were refurbished by otto melara and are now fitted onboard the before mentioned Dutch AAW ships) + the seasparrow missle launchers and magazine. To build a new ship that carried all the systems suggested here would require a ship 2-3 times the size and double the crew of our present ships not to mention a price tag a bit outta our reach. But i guess its OK to dream in technicolour.
