- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Then offer some of your knowledge and guidance and maybe it would not be fanatsy as you point out? Time to put your money where your mouth is Stoney...
AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
Then offer some of your knowledge and guidance and maybe it would not be fanatsy as you point out? Time to put your money where your mouth is Stoney...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Issues that I see:
1. The British Type 45 destroyer has a completely different weapon, sensor and engineering set from what Canada is already used to. Namely, the SAMPSON multi-function radar that tracks airborne targets, the Aster air defense missiles, 4.5 inch Mk 8 Mod. 1 gun, the twin 30mm guns, MFS 7000 sonar, the 48-cell SYLVER vertical missile launcher, and the Rolls-Royce/Northrop Grumman WR-21 turbine engine. Sure, we can probally substitute the SAMPSON radar with the AN/SPY-1 series radar (adding AEGIS capability), the guns can be substituted for the 5 inch gun and a pair of M242 25mm chain guns, and the SYLVER VLS system can be substituted for the American Mk 41 system, but what are the costs involved? What about the engines? Are we going to be operating a small number of unique engines in the fleet or are we going to substituting them for the more common GE LM2500 engines that are already found in the fleet? By then, it is not the same ship as it was before, all you are basically using is the bare hull, excluding the superstructure.
2. The issue with the Arleigh Burke class destroyers is their large crew sizes, up to 380 officers and men, compared to the current vessels in the fleet, for example the Halifax class frigates have a crew of 234 officer and men, or the Iroquois class destroyers with a crew of 285. With the current staffing shortages of the Navy, crew sizes have to be around the same size as the Halifax class frigates. The only way you can get a large ship crew size down is through automation. A more appropriate size vessel that can be supported by the Navy is a vessel with around 240 crew members and officers. The Korean KDX-III destroyer has a massive crew size, about the same of the Burke class destroyers. A ship more similar to the German Sachsen class frigates is more appropriate; their size, 5600 tons, covers up that they have excellent weapons systems, which include a vertical launch system with 32 cells for 32 ESSM (4 per cell) and 24 SM-2 IIA surface-to-air missiles, 2 RAM launchers with 21 surface-to-air/CIWS-missiles each, 2 quadruple Harpoon missile launcher, 1 OTO-Melara 76mm dual-purpose gun, and a large hangar, capable of holding either 2 Sea Lynx helos or 2 NH90 helicopters. Crew size is around the same as the Halifax class frigates; 230. However, the ships are expensive; 1.5 billion Euros for 3 ships.
3. Current CADRE design specifications I have seen demand Command and Control capabilities, air defense, land attack, theater ballistic missile defence, intelligence gathering, and surveillance. A pretty long list of demands. To fit all these into a single hull design requires that the ship design be very large. Logically, the only class of ship that can acutally fit all that in with space for upgrades is a cruiser, or a very big destroyer. However, we don't exactly have the budget for buying large destroyers, or cruisers. The most obvious way to get around this issue is to split the specifications into smaller chunks. However, the trade off is that we have to buy more hulls.
1. The British Type 45 destroyer has a completely different weapon, sensor and engineering set from what Canada is already used to. Namely, the SAMPSON multi-function radar that tracks airborne targets, the Aster air defense missiles, 4.5 inch Mk 8 Mod. 1 gun, the twin 30mm guns, MFS 7000 sonar, the 48-cell SYLVER vertical missile launcher, and the Rolls-Royce/Northrop Grumman WR-21 turbine engine. Sure, we can probally substitute the SAMPSON radar with the AN/SPY-1 series radar (adding AEGIS capability), the guns can be substituted for the 5 inch gun and a pair of M242 25mm chain guns, and the SYLVER VLS system can be substituted for the American Mk 41 system, but what are the costs involved? What about the engines? Are we going to be operating a small number of unique engines in the fleet or are we going to substituting them for the more common GE LM2500 engines that are already found in the fleet? By then, it is not the same ship as it was before, all you are basically using is the bare hull, excluding the superstructure.
2. The issue with the Arleigh Burke class destroyers is their large crew sizes, up to 380 officers and men, compared to the current vessels in the fleet, for example the Halifax class frigates have a crew of 234 officer and men, or the Iroquois class destroyers with a crew of 285. With the current staffing shortages of the Navy, crew sizes have to be around the same size as the Halifax class frigates. The only way you can get a large ship crew size down is through automation. A more appropriate size vessel that can be supported by the Navy is a vessel with around 240 crew members and officers. The Korean KDX-III destroyer has a massive crew size, about the same of the Burke class destroyers. A ship more similar to the German Sachsen class frigates is more appropriate; their size, 5600 tons, covers up that they have excellent weapons systems, which include a vertical launch system with 32 cells for 32 ESSM (4 per cell) and 24 SM-2 IIA surface-to-air missiles, 2 RAM launchers with 21 surface-to-air/CIWS-missiles each, 2 quadruple Harpoon missile launcher, 1 OTO-Melara 76mm dual-purpose gun, and a large hangar, capable of holding either 2 Sea Lynx helos or 2 NH90 helicopters. Crew size is around the same as the Halifax class frigates; 230. However, the ships are expensive; 1.5 billion Euros for 3 ships.
3. Current CADRE design specifications I have seen demand Command and Control capabilities, air defense, land attack, theater ballistic missile defence, intelligence gathering, and surveillance. A pretty long list of demands. To fit all these into a single hull design requires that the ship design be very large. Logically, the only class of ship that can acutally fit all that in with space for upgrades is a cruiser, or a very big destroyer. However, we don't exactly have the budget for buying large destroyers, or cruisers. The most obvious way to get around this issue is to split the specifications into smaller chunks. However, the trade off is that we have to buy more hulls.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
CADRE is dead, they plan on a single class(to replace both the CPF and 280s) with the first 4 ships optimized for AAD and command and control. I would like to see a modifed/extended Type 124 fulfill this role, we would end up with more bang for our buck.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I would pretty much say that the Sachsen class (F124) frigates are good enough as it is. They need a bit of Canadianization, mostly regarding to helo operations, torpedo tubes, the sonar, the secondary guns, but otherwise, the basic design is good enough for Canada. It has excellent area AAW capability, with both ESSM and the Standard II missiles, and the CIWS, the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), is already being considered by the DND to eventually replace Phalanx. The large flightdeck and hangar means that fitting the Cyclone shouldn't be a problem. Its a good design in its own right, purchasing 4 or 5 of them will add valuable air defense capabilites to the fleet.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
We might be even better off buying the class as is....look how long it will be before we get a Victoria class operational because of Canadianization. :/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ex-Dragoon said:
You forgot demothballing (we are the first guys ever to ever demothball a submarine, as usually if a submarine is being mothballed, it is usually heading to the scrapyard very soon), the dents in the pressure hull that the Royal Navy can't explain, and the fact that they are a unique class (which leads to spare parts shortages as the suppliers stopped manufacturing parts for the subs, which caused trouble for Chicoutimi, as we robbed parts from her to install on the other ships). Building our own subs was pointless; the Australians tried this, and they had endless snags with their Collins class submarines. We should have bought German Type 212A class submarines instead, as the Germans and the Italians are fielding it, and they already have AIP propulsion.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
LOL I am way ahead of you:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28345.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28345.0.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Techincally, I would want the American Virginia class attack subs, but there are a few hurdles to overcome:
1. They are nuclear powered. Not exactly a problem as we have plenty of nuclear fuel in Canada.
2. Costs. These subs are expensive (but capable). $1.65 billion US each.
3. Large crew size. One Virginia requires 3 times the crew size as the Victoria's.
4. The Americans don't want to share their naval nuclear propulsion technology with us. We sell them uranium for their nuclear reactors. Go figure. :
Since we can't have American nuclear subs, and the fact that we are cheap, we are stuck with convential subs.
1. They are nuclear powered. Not exactly a problem as we have plenty of nuclear fuel in Canada.
2. Costs. These subs are expensive (but capable). $1.65 billion US each.
3. Large crew size. One Virginia requires 3 times the crew size as the Victoria's.
4. The Americans don't want to share their naval nuclear propulsion technology with us. We sell them uranium for their nuclear reactors. Go figure. :
Since we can't have American nuclear subs, and the fact that we are cheap, we are stuck with convential subs.
I agree that the F-124 platform is an excellent design. Its designers could easily modify the design to meet Canadian requirements and we could build it here so it wouldn't require Canadianization. The problem with the Victoria's was that we had to tear out British equipment and replace it with American equipment that we had, and then integrate it & do it on the cheap as the money and man hours set aside for this was used to keep the rest of the fleet going. The whole process could have been completed a lot faster had the necessary money and yard manpower been made available. I also note that the F-124 design was in the running for the Aussie AAW destroyer but lost out to a new modified Burke class design as the Aussies wanted the Aegis Weapon system.
The reason the Aussies built their own design subs was because no one else was building one that met their requirements so they had to build their own. They required a long range large patrol sub and while subs like German 212 are excellent boats they are smaller shorter range boats, which is one of the reasons why Canada bought the Victoria's as they were the only open ocean type available short of building a new design like the Aussies or buying from Japan who is the only country beside Russia building large conventional boats.
The reason the Aussies built their own design subs was because no one else was building one that met their requirements so they had to build their own. They required a long range large patrol sub and while subs like German 212 are excellent boats they are smaller shorter range boats, which is one of the reasons why Canada bought the Victoria's as they were the only open ocean type available short of building a new design like the Aussies or buying from Japan who is the only country beside Russia building large conventional boats.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
STONEY said:
I don't know about the Victoria's being the only ocean type conventional subs available, according to Naval Technology, the French AGOSTA 90Bclass and Scorpène class submarines have better endurance and range (and the French classified these types in their most capable class as an océanique, meaning "ocean-going."), and the Type 212/214 has a longer endurance than the Victoria's and are just as big.
Other AAW ships that I see as a potential off-the-shelf ship besides the German F-124, is the Spanish Alvaro de Bazán class (F-100) frigates, which are AEGIS ships, and Dutch De Zeven Provincien class frigates. All of the designs are suitable to replace the Tribals we got, and offer a major step upwards in terms of capabilites.
Yah well if i was going to drive from Halifax to B.C. i'd rather go in a BMW 5 series rather than a Cavalier even though the Cavalier is more than capable of making it. Cold figures alone don't tell the whole story about a submarine . Iveco believes that the LSVW is an excellent truck but not many agree.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
STONEY said:
Well, the Pakistanis seem to like the AGOSTA subs they just got from France, and the Germans and the Italians appear to be delighted with the Type 212. The South Koreans also seem to like the design, as they have purchased a few as well.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Wow, what an incredibly strange thing to say. On the one hand you say we should go for good quality ocean-going subs and then, when someone points out that there are lots of classes available that fit the bill, you come up with this weak "A Cavalier is more likely to survive a drive across Canada" argument!? So by your logic, we could have had better, more capable, less expensive submarines (Cavaliers), but you prefer a name brand that looks nice but is less capabe (BMW 5 series)? Not only are there better subs out there than the Victorias, but many now come with AIP which would make them well suited for under-ice ops. Maybe (just maybe) we didn't buy the Vics because they were the best but rather because they were cheap, available and the US and UK wanted us to buy them.
Oh, and by the way, trucks made by IVECO are fairly decent. Trucks made by Western Star based on dumbed-down IVECO designs are crap; so your argument doesn't hold water there either.
MG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Mortar guy said:
I have to agree with the point that the Vic's were bought because they were cheap. we spent £244 million (roughly 500 million Canadian) on those subs, while the Type 214 costs about $1.3 billion dollars Canadian (from a South Korean order of 3 of the type) for 3 ships (or roughly $400 million each boat), but the South Koreans also wanted technology transfer, and wanted to build the subs in their own shipyards instead. Clearly, with the issues the Victoria's are having, the purchase price of 500 million dollars Canadian will have to be spent to put things right.
I think that your missing the point i was trying to make. Despite data in websites like Naval Technology the Agosta, Scorpene and Type 212 were not designed, nor normally operated as long range patrol subs like the Victoria's or Collins"s. They operate in Balitc, Med or coastal areas usually. I never said there was anything wrong with these boats thay are excellent but when they travel any great distance from home they usually have a surface vessel as escort until they reach their operating area. The Victoria's & Collins"s were designed from the start to operate over vast ocean areas by themselves. If you were to see all these boats parked alongside each other it would be obvious the size difference between them. Just like you can have the finest pistol in the world but for some work its better to have a yourself rifle .
I also agree that we wouldn't have gotten the Victoria's if not for the price. Some years ago Ballard Power Systems in B.C. was working on a DND contract to design a AIP plug that could be added to our subs in an upgrade progam and actually had a scalled down working model but this program ended a long time ago. Money probably had something to do with that also.
I know that the LSVW was a dumbed down IVECO , that was my point , on the surface if you had read the manufacturers data and new IVECO'S rep you would have thought we were getting a good veh. BY the way i was recently talking to a Major who was telling me what a great veh. the LSVW was . After he left i asked a nearby Sgt. who the Major was he said oh the Major he's in charge of LSVW maintenance.
OUT!
I also agree that we wouldn't have gotten the Victoria's if not for the price. Some years ago Ballard Power Systems in B.C. was working on a DND contract to design a AIP plug that could be added to our subs in an upgrade progam and actually had a scalled down working model but this program ended a long time ago. Money probably had something to do with that also.
I know that the LSVW was a dumbed down IVECO , that was my point , on the surface if you had read the manufacturers data and new IVECO'S rep you would have thought we were getting a good veh. BY the way i was recently talking to a Major who was telling me what a great veh. the LSVW was . After he left i asked a nearby Sgt. who the Major was he said oh the Major he's in charge of LSVW maintenance.
OUT!
- Reaction score
- 4,019
- Points
- 1,120
Hey gang,
Based on this previous discussion, and some comments I've overheard regaring the CF and a NGS role being looked into, I'm reviving this thread a bit. (Comments made during a brief to crew by a guy with a leaf on his shoulderboards.)
I had a short discussion with my CSEO when we were at sea last week, and he said I should write something up and run with it, he'd look at it and help out if he could.
So, Here we go. I've done some more research (Janes online and such) and found out that the Swedish navy has used the 120mm AMOS system on one of their CV-90 boats, as a trial. So it's not just been thought about, it's been done, and on a platform much smaller than an MCDV.
I also found out some of the statistics on the BAE 120mm AMS. Here's some vitals:
Turret
Crew: 2 (commander and loader)
Turret length:
(with barrel) 4.68 m
(without barrel) 2.81 m
Turret width: 2.20 m
Turret height: 0.89 m
Barrel length: 3.00 m
Recoil length:
(maximum) 600 mm
(maximum load) 170 kN
Turret weight: 2,800 kg
Maximum range: 9,200 m (with HE M530A1)
Rate of fire:
(rapid) 8 rds/min
(sustained) 4 rds/min
(MRSI) 4 rds/min
Armament:
(main) 1 × 120 mm BAE Systems, RO Defence smoothbore breech-loading mortar
(secondary) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
(smoke grenade dischargers) 2 × 4
Control:
(traverse) 360º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
(elevation) -5 to +80º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
Fire-control system: multitarget input capability with automatic weapon positioning, gun angle calculations and weapon compensation for vehicle attitude and meteorological conditions
Navigation: integrated GPS system for vehicle position, heading and attitude
Optics: integrated all-weather day/night system with thermal imager and integrated laser range-finder for automatic range FCS input
Apparently, it also fits in a standard 1700mm turret ring, as per those fitted on the LAVs. (Meaning also that any LAV turret could be fitted to the ship....)
So, does anyone have comments/suggestsions that might help me with this little paper?
It may not go anywhere but to my CSEO/CO, but hey, it's an idea, worst case is that I get shot down without leaving the ship.
Best case, the NWT's get a new toy to play with!
NS
Based on this previous discussion, and some comments I've overheard regaring the CF and a NGS role being looked into, I'm reviving this thread a bit. (Comments made during a brief to crew by a guy with a leaf on his shoulderboards.)
I had a short discussion with my CSEO when we were at sea last week, and he said I should write something up and run with it, he'd look at it and help out if he could.
So, Here we go. I've done some more research (Janes online and such) and found out that the Swedish navy has used the 120mm AMOS system on one of their CV-90 boats, as a trial. So it's not just been thought about, it's been done, and on a platform much smaller than an MCDV.
I also found out some of the statistics on the BAE 120mm AMS. Here's some vitals:
Turret
Crew: 2 (commander and loader)
Turret length:
(with barrel) 4.68 m
(without barrel) 2.81 m
Turret width: 2.20 m
Turret height: 0.89 m
Barrel length: 3.00 m
Recoil length:
(maximum) 600 mm
(maximum load) 170 kN
Turret weight: 2,800 kg
Maximum range: 9,200 m (with HE M530A1)
Rate of fire:
(rapid) 8 rds/min
(sustained) 4 rds/min
(MRSI) 4 rds/min
Armament:
(main) 1 × 120 mm BAE Systems, RO Defence smoothbore breech-loading mortar
(secondary) 1 × 7.62 mm MG
(smoke grenade dischargers) 2 × 4
Control:
(traverse) 360º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
(elevation) -5 to +80º electrohydraulic with manual back-up
Fire-control system: multitarget input capability with automatic weapon positioning, gun angle calculations and weapon compensation for vehicle attitude and meteorological conditions
Navigation: integrated GPS system for vehicle position, heading and attitude
Optics: integrated all-weather day/night system with thermal imager and integrated laser range-finder for automatic range FCS input
Apparently, it also fits in a standard 1700mm turret ring, as per those fitted on the LAVs. (Meaning also that any LAV turret could be fitted to the ship....)
So, does anyone have comments/suggestsions that might help me with this little paper?
It may not go anywhere but to my CSEO/CO, but hey, it's an idea, worst case is that I get shot down without leaving the ship.
Best case, the NWT's get a new toy to play with!
NS
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Points
- 1,010
Navy Shooter,
I have a concern with the max range of the mortar (9200m= about 4.5NM). In many parts of the world, the water gets awfully shallow that close to shore, you don't get much "inland reach" when the troops get off of the beach and you are really putting your ship in a position where it can be counterfired on quite easily from the shore.
What is the role that the Swedes intend on using this turret in? Does that give us any hints on how we might us it? I guess the better question to ask is: What role would this turret allow us to perform? Are there better ways of doing it?
Not intended to discourage you- keep asking questions!
I have a concern with the max range of the mortar (9200m= about 4.5NM). In many parts of the world, the water gets awfully shallow that close to shore, you don't get much "inland reach" when the troops get off of the beach and you are really putting your ship in a position where it can be counterfired on quite easily from the shore.
What is the role that the Swedes intend on using this turret in? Does that give us any hints on how we might us it? I guess the better question to ask is: What role would this turret allow us to perform? Are there better ways of doing it?
Not intended to discourage you- keep asking questions!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
being that close in all affords exposure to anti-ship missiles and 130mm mobile anti-navy arty.
Unless it was for a Force protection measure or protecting LCAC's.
We also need some real fast small patrol missile boats(Harpoon equipped) to protect our new Amphib and give us a psychological edge. Plus be a radar picket and forward protection for the amphib.
Lets say 10 for each coast!! (dream on, I know)
Unless it was for a Force protection measure or protecting LCAC's.
We also need some real fast small patrol missile boats(Harpoon equipped) to protect our new Amphib and give us a psychological edge. Plus be a radar picket and forward protection for the amphib.
Lets say 10 for each coast!! (dream on, I know)
- Reaction score
- 7,940
- Points
- 1,160
SKT: The Swedes operate in relatively shallow waters in the Baltic but in an area studded with a massive amount of small rocks and islands. Similar in fact to the 1000 islands area around Kingston but over a larger area and with many outcroppings some of which are only a couple of meters square. This creates a large maze that if on land couldn't be bettered for creating a defence in depth based on mutual support. Accordingly they intend to defend these approaches by using an infantry force armed with standard small arms up to 0.50 cal MGs and backed up by weapons like their version of Hellfire which will be fired from tripod stands mounted on shore and deployed by muscle power. The troops are transported from island to island by a shallow draft, water jet craft known as the Stridsbat 90 or Combat Boat 90. It is made from aluminum (not clear if it has any armour plate), carries troops under a roof, and has a bow ramp to permit rapid egress directly on to land. It is a waterborne personnel carrier
This is the boat and the force with which they are looking at employing the AMOS turret.
It would make a great addition to a riverine or inshore force. Not quite sure it would make a useful addition to a deepwater vessel's armament.
Pictures below.
Cheers.
