Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

Thanks @Underway

No problems.

Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies. The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out. And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.

 

[Spencer100]

No problems.

Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies. The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out. And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.

I love your optimism that they will be a fourth ship! LOL

 

[Underway]

I love your optimism that they will be a fourth ship! LOL

Its both optimism and cynicism. Optimistically we need frigate replacements so there are going to be more ships. The cynic in me says ISI is the definition of a military-industrial complex. Which party is going to cancel Union jobs in the voter-rich area of Halifax? That shipyard will be building ships forever now to pork-barrel ridings in the Maritimes.

You could argue they might not be CSC and that's possible. But there will be ships.

 

[Spencer100]

Its both optimism and cynicism. Optimistically we need frigate replacements so there are going to be more ships. The cynic in me says ISI is the definition of a military-industrial complex. Which party is going to cancel Union jobs in the voter-rich area of Halifax? That shipyard will be building ships forever now to pork-barrel ridings in the Maritimes.

You could argue they might not be CSC and that's possible. But there will be ships.

I think you are right. The jobs plus the Irvings make a good combo to keep things moving.

Years ago before the Harper premiership I remember one CPC strategist (Kory Teneycke I think?) saying if you want equipment and support the CAF we should buy and build in Canada even if twice the price. You get the workers support and the companies lobbying too. Thus the NSS was born.

As a crass political game I think that should be the case too. Just look at the GDLS London workers conundrum. Unifor (CAW) years and years of NDP support. But the NDP didn't really support their sale of equipment to SA. What to do to. So the GDLS receives the contract for the LAV 6 replacing, Bisons etc.

I am always two sides of this build it here but then for the good of service buy the best and cheapest.

 

[Weinie]

I think you are right. The jobs plus the Irvings make a good combo to keep things moving.

I am always two sides of this build it here but then for the good of service buy the best and cheapest.

You can buy best, or cheapest. Choose. And I would suggest that Canada, in an effort to spread IRB's, achieves neither.

 

[Underway]

It won't be the cheapest, but it has a shot at the "best". If not "best" it will be no slouch. The advantage of the project is that you can iteratively improve on each new hull. I've already heard discussions on how the second batch will change from the first.

 

[Spencer100]

You can buy best, or cheapest. Choose. And I would suggest that Canada, in an effort to spread IRB's, achieves neither.

Yes the IRB do not achieve much but spread some money around to Canadian firms. I think what is need is like the GDLS example a large plant with the knowledge in Canada. Irving after this will have that. Yes some will be retained by BAE and Lockheed but on the whole it is building in Irving.

 

[Weinie]

Yes the IRB do not achieve much but spread some money around to Canadian firms. I think what is need is like the GDLS example a large plant with the knowledge in Canada. Irving after this will have that. Yes some will be retained by BAE and Lockheed but on the whole it is building in Irving.

Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market. crickets crickets.

 

[FSTO]

Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market. crickets crickets.

Oh yea, we talk a big game.

 

[Good2Golf]

No problems.

Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies. The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out. And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.

Yup, S-band can do fine, especially with such a big aperture, even without using additional margin; the angular resolution will be no slouch. Keeping it in S-band would also provide greater range for multi-static illumination for another platform’s semi-active homers….if as you note, Underway, there are any of those left. ESSM Block II already has both semi and fully-active seeking.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We can maintain even 3 shipyards, if the government does not insist on running the DND and CCG vessel for their lifespan +20 years. What we need is a rule/law that no government ship will be older than 20 years and must be replaced by then. That will reduce running costs and keep the fleets and the yards modern.

 

[Underway]

Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market. crickets crickets.

There is no discussion of this for warships at this point. However, LMC has done a good job of getting midlife refit/combat systems modernization work.

Chile and NZ both had their frigates upgraded by LMC in Victoria, with similar systems that Halifax Class had. And its fed back into the CSC project. Without the Sea Ceptor experience LMC gained working on the Type 23's and ANZAC's they might not have bid them for the CIADS.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

View attachment 71251
Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.

Tomahawks? I know there was some speculation before about them being employed; so does this confirm that they will mounted?

 

[Weinie]

There is no discussion of this for warships at this point. However, LMC has done a good job of getting midlife refit/combat systems modernization work.

Chile and NZ both had their frigates upgraded by LMC in Victoria, with similar systems that Halifax Class had. And its fed back into the CSC project. Without the Sea Ceptor experience LMC gained working on the Type 23's and ANZAC's they might not have bid them for the CIADS.

Ok. But there was this.

Defence contractors upgrading NZDF warships locked in legal battle

As a former PAO, I was asked to buff a turd numerous times. I refused. Is there a risk that LMC will be in a similar sit re the CSC? Who knows? I am a pragmatist.

 

[Underway]

Ok. But there was this.

Defence contractors upgrading NZDF warships locked in legal battle

As a former PAO, I was asked to buff a turd numerous times. I refused. Is there a risk that LMC will be in a similar sit re the CSC? Who knows? I am a pragmatist.

Sure. Contractors and subcontractors fight all the time. 80% of their jobs is being jerks to each other.

I fully expect that ISI, BAE, and LMC will have, if they don't already have, a tense relationship, particularly for the first ship. The contract is just oddly organized. I'm sure BAE would much rather just own the yard themselves. If the relationship wasn't tense at times I would question whether the requirements were written correctly!

 

[Underway]

Tomahawks? I know there was some speculation before about them being employed; so does this confirm that they will mounted?

Not until they are purchased, but I see them constantly publishing this as warming the turn and getting the public ready for them.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Interesting to see the finer details getting sorted out. I was wondering, as I haven't seen anything in any of the publications to date, whether there will be.50cal RWS mounted to the ship as well as the Marlin? I would assume so, but haven't seen or heard a peep about it.

 

[Underway]

Interesting to see the finer details getting sorted out. I was wondering, as I haven't seen anything in any of the publications to date, whether there will be.50cal RWS mounted to the ship as well as the Marlin? I would assume so, but haven't seen or heard a peep about it.

No idea. There is an argument to be made that if you have 30mm you don't need a 50 cal. I can see mounts for a 50 though, amidships and on the bridge wings for going into and out of harbor in a higher force protection state. Should do it like the UK though. Get a 7.62 minigun.

 

[Swampbuggy]

No idea. There is an argument to be made that if you have 30mm you don't need a 50 cal. I can see mounts for a 50 though, amidships and on the bridge wings for going into and out of harbor in a higher force protection state. Should do it like the UK though. Get a 7.62 minigun.

I read somewhere that the.50 was the best choice against small boats/swarm attacks, but have no idea if that still holds true. I can certainly see how the higher firing rate would be an advantage over the larger calibre RWS, but obviously wouldn't pack the same punch.

 

[Underway]

30mm airburst is really good against small boats. Three-round burst, move to next target...