Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

Has the RFP for ship design been released yet? Per the last media release in June, it was supposed to be released this summer.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:

Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:

Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers

Mark
Ottawa

If we have the APAR/Smart-L combination, both of which are currently being updated or have been updated, then at any time we could add the SM3 or we could direct missiles fired from other ships that carry the SM3.

http://missilethreat.com/raytheon-proves-apar-communications-for-sm-3-missile-in-netherlands-test/

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/netherlands/defence/press-release/excellent-performance-hms-de-zeven-provincien-international-0

 

[NavyShooter]

We used to have MARS- E who were software programmers...but we got rid of that sub-occupation years ago.  Any uniformed personnel who were working within S-82 since around 2000 were supporting the LM staff and doing very little if any coding.  As Tactics Staff we worked directly with the LM personnel who were resident in S-82 to update/upgrade the versions of the CCS.

As someone who worked 3rd floor of S-82, maybe things on the 4th floor (and in the CSTC) worked differently from how I understood them to?

I was under the impression that the personnel in there were DND with the occasional CAF Lt(N) in there for seasoning with their salt-n-peppers.

NS

 

[MarkOttawa]

Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:

Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Lumber]

Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:

Mark
Ottawa

My first reaction, was "why the hell is a private company evaluating who can provide the best warship for the people of Canada," but after reading the article, I think we have the checks in place to have this done well... or "well enough"...

 

[GR66]

I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.

The CSC program calls for the design to replace the AAD/Command capability of the Iroquis-Class destroyers in addition to replacing the Halifax-Class patrol frigates.  My understanding is that there is to be as much commonality as possible between the two variants.  How much of a driver of the overall design is the AAD portion of the requirement? 

For example, out of necessity due to the nature of the specialized AAD equipment (radars, types of missile launchers, etc.), is the structural design of the ship significantly different than for a ship only requiring self-defence capabilities.  Greater beam and/or draft to offset a larger mast and more topside weight, etc.?

Secondly, is there a difference between the performance of a given missile being directed by an AAD warship vs. a non-AAD warship in self defence?  For example, is an ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.) fired and directed by a Halifax-Class frigate in self defence less likely to hit an incoming missile that and ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.)  fired and directed by an AAD warship in self defence?  Or is it more the number of incoming targets that an AAD warship can engage in addition to being able to defend other ships in addition to your own?

Thanks,

 

[Lumber]

I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.

I was working on a long response to each of your questions, but I quickly came to the conclusion that there are just too many variables, and I could list a lot of them out, but it's mostly speculation. However, most modern weapons and sensors have the same space and energy requirements relative to one another (rail gun excluded). A Mk41 VLS can fire SM-2s as well as it can fire ESSM, SMART-L  is as big as a S1850M, a SAMPSON takes up as much space as a EMPAR. However, an AD version might need more of these, and the more advanced version might need better cooling and more processors. As such, I would imagine that the AD version could be built longer than the GP version, incorporating an extra hull section somewhere in the middle to house the extra cooling units and/or processors.

 

[GR66]

Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.

 

[MilEME09]

Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.

Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?

 

[GR66]

Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?

My understanding was that the revised procurement process was calling for an existing, off-the-shelf design.  I read that as an existing hull form, with possible modifications to accommodate the systems suite offered but not things like lengthening hulls, new propulsion systems, etc. but I could be wrong on that.

 

[GR66]

Would re-using the radars from the Halifax-Class Frigates be an option for the GP versions of the CSC?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.

 

[dimsum]

I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die.

Beside the CANEX in Naden?  >

 

[jollyjacktar]

I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.

That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.

 

[GR66]

That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.

If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC? 

If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions? 

Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years? 

 

[Furniture]

I believe part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the proposals are for both the hull and the combat systems. Each of the bidding companies have partnered with or produce their own preferred systems, so to use the CEROS or SMART-S would require more "Canadianizing" which goes against the idea of the project. My understanding is that the "Canadianiazing" would be restricted to things  hotel services, fire fighting equipment, etc...

Sticking to what is out there already in service might just save enough money for us to get all 15 of the proposed ships.

 

[jollyjacktar]

If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC? 

If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions? 

Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years?

I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my swim lane, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.

 

[Lumber]

I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my swim lane, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.

You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?

 

[jollyjacktar]

You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?

Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod: