Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[KevinB]

US Navy prioritizes ‘game-changing’ rearming capability for ships

Reloading a vertical launching system is a challenging maneuver, given the crane must hold missile canisters vertically, while slowly lowering explosives.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They should get the people from Space X involved, they are pretty good at figuring out problems with out of the box solutions.

 

[Spencer100]

They should get the people from Space X involved, they are pretty good at figuring out problems with out of the box solutions.

Elon is not in the good books with the régime at the moment

 

[quadrapiper]

Elon is not in the good books with the régime at the moment

Why would he be in anyone's good books right now? His stunts with Ukrainian access to Starlink do nothing but aid Russia.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He is excellent on technical stuff, totally lost on people stuff, other than hiring people to do his people stuff.

 

[Spencer100]

Why would he be in anyone's good books right now? His stunts with Ukrainian access to Starlink do nothing but aid Russia.

I really didn't mean the starling stuff.

The regime is way more upset about Twitter. Opening it up and uncovering things.

But I see the starlink thing as having many sides. One he did give Ukraine the starlinks for free. In the end he is running a business. So he was hoping someone would for the use. Plus I think seeing Starlink used directly in a one way "drone" weapon was something he did not want. I can in a way respect that. Yes it may be slicing the apple thin that an infantry unit can use it but a Drone weapon can not. It's a part of the bigger debate we have in society. AI, weapons and war.

I think if you see past statements he is consistent about some of those topics.

But then on other hand is his large investments China effecting some of his moves?

 

[GR66]

Australia's DSR: Navy Signals Shift Towards Smaller Ships - Naval News

Australia's DSR has effectively postponed decisions on the future makeup of the Royal Australian Navy, pending the outcome of a new surface combatant review...

www.navalnews.com

Apparently the RAN is reviewing its fleet structure and examining the possibility of more numerous, smaller ships. Could possibly result in less Type 26's. Also noted that there may be a possible shift away from an ASW focused surface fleet as the new SSNs will take over much of that role.

“The surface fleet, as it’s currently constructed, was determined at a time when Australia was still pursuing an [SSK]. Now that we are going to be operating [SSNs] that is a dramatically different capability, and it obviously has some implication in terms of the overall structure of the Navy….The second is that the DSR has observed that navies around the world are moving in the direction of having a larger number of smaller vessels. Now, with those two ideas in mind, we are thinking about the long-term structure of our surface fleet [into the 2030s].”

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Australia's DSR: Navy Signals Shift Towards Smaller Ships - Naval News

Australia's DSR has effectively postponed decisions on the future makeup of the Royal Australian Navy, pending the outcome of a new surface combatant review...

www.navalnews.com

Apparently the RAN is reviewing its fleet structure and examining the possibility of more numerous, smaller ships. Could possibly result in less Type 26's. Also noted that there may be a possible shift away from an ASW focused surface fleet as the new SSNs will take over much of that role.

That does make sense for them to have fewer Type 26s…if you have the SSNs to do ASW.

 

[Lumber]

The second is that the DSR has observed that navies around the world are moving in the direction of having a larger number of smaller vessels.

I guess China never got the memo.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That does make sense for them to have fewer Type 26s…if you have the SSNs to do ASW.

The problem with having smaller vessels is you start to have real issues having the volume to carry a meaningful load of missiles; a really good sensor suite and in any kind of sea state you end up just surviving, vice being able to fight.

It is a really tricky balancing act trying to design a ship that is just the right size to be survivable, fightable, and affordable…

 

[YZT580]

That does make sense for them to have fewer Type 26s…if you have the SSNs to do ASW.

Except the need to bridge the time between now and having the SSN's coming on line, what, 2140?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem with having smaller vessels is you start to have real issues having the volume to carry a meaningful load of missiles; a really good sensor suite and in any kind of sea state you end up just surviving, vice being able to fight.

It is a really tricky balancing act trying to design a ship that is just the right size to be survivable, fightable, and affordable…

Something, something "quantity is a quality all its own..."

The Flower Class and T-34s are good examples...

 

[Lumber]

For Canada, small craft don't meet our security goals. Small vessels are best suited for local ops; we want to project power.

 

[Spencer100]

Something, something "quantity is a quality all its own..."

The Flower Class and T-34s are good examples...

The T-26 is the size of WWII cruisers. That being said all ship classes are much bigger than the ones they replace. Their new OPS are bigger than destroyers of the past.

Quantity is a good thing. Something we have forgotten....Or in some cases not held as high as the exquisite high tech weapons we want but in much lower numbers. Cases on both sides for this.

The T-26 is becoming a very exquisite and very high price ship. The Hunter class is more expensive than the AAW destroyers that they just built. And even the Flight II AB's. But with less total capabilities. It's the same problem the USN is finding with the new Constitution Class. Less than half the capabilities at 3/4 the costs and raising.

 

[Spencer100]

For Canada, small craft don't meet our security goals. Small vessels are best suited for local ops; we want to project power convene meetings.

FTFY

 

[Halifax Tar]

The T-26 is the size of WWII cruisers. That being said all ship classes are much bigger than the ones they replace. Their new OPS are bigger than destroyers of the past.

Quantity is a good thing. Something we have forgotten....Or in some cases not held as high as the exquisite high tech weapons we want but in much lower numbers. Cases on both sides for this.

The T-26 is becoming a very exquisite and very high price ship. The Hunter class is more expensive than the AAW destroyers that they just built. And even the Flight II AB's. But with less total capabilities. It's the same problem the USN is finding with the new Constitution Class. Less than half the capabilities at 3/4 the costs and raising.

I premise this with the fact that any talk about Canadian fleet expansion is a bit of napkin writing fun until we actually have people to put on those ships.

Having said the above, I would rather the 80% solution, in a greater quantity and on time and budget than the 100%, in a smaller quantity and late and over budget.

Having also said that, if a modern war occurs and chews through our equipment we wont be building high tech to replace them. We will be be building something akin to the modern idea of the flower class, and lots of them, augmented with a smaller amount of larger more capable ships.

 

[dapaterson]

Having said the above, I would rather the 80% solution, in a greater quantity and on time and budget than the 100%, in a smaller quantity and late and over budget.

I have confidence that Irving can deliver a late, over budget, smaller quantity 80% (at best) solution.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have confidence that Irving can deliver a late, over budget, smaller quantity 80% (at best) solution.

lol You always know how to tame my hopes and dreams lol

 

[NavyShooter]

Canada cannot (anymore) support multiple classes of major surface combattant.

As such, we need a 'single' solution.

Having IRE, ISL, IRO, CPF and others all at the same time will not work in our situation.

So.

We need a 'do everything' platform. The Halifax Class was designed initially as a primarily ASW platform, with a point defense missile capability.

That has been built up, and with the ESSM, we now have the ability to do some area defense, especially as compared to the original RIM-7 missiles we used to carry, so now the Halifax Class is 'almost' a multi-role frigate.

The USN has the capacity to experiment with 'single role' ships. The RCN does not have that ability.

 

[Spencer100]

lol You always know how to tame my hopes and dreams lol

Plus here is my bet.....if the RAN reduces the Hunter class buy. The "smaller" and "cheaper" replacement will work out to be more than the just buying the original plan and deliver less capability in the end.