Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Maxman1]

Seems like the Type 31 frigate, with a 127mm, would be an ideal supplement to the CSC, for lower intensity missions that need more than an OPV but don't necessitate a CSC.

And for OPV, the River class with a 57mm seems like the perfect replacement for the Kingston class.

 

[Halifax Tar]

From what I understand, the RCN is still perfectly capable of ASW and does a fairly good job however, that doesn't really mean that we should specialize in it. I think Canada providing escort to convoys and friendly task forces is a key role for us, hence why I think we need a platform capable of more than just ASW. We are going to be dealing with a multitude of threats potentially across the world depending on where we get deployed, submarines are one part of the equation but defending from more advanced and massed anti-surface missiles is another thing to keep in mind. Launch platforms can be from the shore, from submarines, from aircraft and in the future, potentially from undersea and aerial drones. Leaning away from just ASW focus allows us to put highly capable sensor suites, combat management systems and missile defense systems aboard which allows our ships to provide a far more wide reaching and effective net of protection to ourselves and our allies. Something like a CPF with only 16 missiles will not cut it going forward, arguably its not even cutting it now in certain theatres. That is why I think overly concentrating is not wise, we need platforms capable of doing a variety of roles/duties.

Canada needs to think how it's fits as a piece into the puzzle. We are not the puzzle itself.

We are never going act or deploy independently, it's just not going to happen, and never has. We are always part of a larger coalition. The Yanks are have the AWW covered, but are mediocre at ASW... So let's fill that gap.

So, we can chose to be A 1 tops at something like ASW, with some AWW capability or we can be mediocre at all things and pretend.

It's like the big cods idea of the all singing all dancing big honking ship. Great in theory, awful in practice.

From where I sit concentration of effort is key. Find a role and be the GD best there is at it.

Seems like the Type 31 frigate, with a 127mm, would be an ideal supplement to the CSC, for lower intensity missions that need more than an OPV but don't necessitate a CSC.

And for OPV, the River class with a 57mm seems like the perfect replacement for the Kingston class.

Or how about a whole whack of type 31 maximized for ASW ? With the 127 of course and some missiles for self/TG defense.

I've always thought the Rivers would be a great replacement for the Kingstons... Can we keep them as the Kingston class ? Kinda like having my home town in the fleet.

 

[DBNSG]

Can you provide reference for your claim that moved around USMC folks in the Persian Gulf ?

We have absolutely no capability to conduct amphib ops beyond some small boats and divers.

My mistake, I just reread Dusty Millers Persian excursion about Canada leading the International logistics Force in the Gulf.
Which when you think about it that was a very complex operation as Canada had to be the trusted leader of a Multi National
combined logistics force. Could we do something like that today? Or would this government WANT us to?

 

[Halifax Tar]

My mistake, I just reread Dusty Millers Persian excursion about Canada leading the International logistics Force in the Gulf.
Which when you think about it that was a very complex operation as Canada had to be the trusted leader of a Multi National
combined logistics force. Could we do something like that today? Or would this government WANT us to?

Big credit to those and then back then that was so easy feat.

I think that same task would be difficult with our current people and material state.

 

[Furniture]

Canada needs to think how it's fits as a piece into the puzzle. We are not the pulled itself.

We are never going act or deploy independently, it's just not going to happen, and never has. We are always part of a larger coalition. The Yanks are have the AWW covered, but are mediocre at ASW... So let's fill that gap.

So, we can chose to be A 1 tops at something like ASW, with some AWW capability or we can be mediocre at all things and pretend.

It's like the big cods idea of the all singing al dancing big honking ship. Great in theory, awful in practice.

From where I sit concentration of effort is key. Find a role and be the GD best there is at it.



Or how about a whole whack of type 31 maximized for ASW ? With the 127 of course and some missiles for self/TG defense.

I've always thought the Rivers would be a great replacement for the Kingstons... Can we keep them as the Kingston class ? Kinda like having my home town in the fleet.

The problem with ASW specialization at the expense of AAW/ASuW is it makes our boats vulnerable when doing the jobs we actually do with them.

The age of massed convoys crossing the Atlantic like in WWII is in the past. Cargo ships move faster than shipboard ASW can be conducted, and we have aircraft/hydrophone coverage across the Atlantic. The RCN needs to move beyond The Battle of The Atlantic mindset.

We actually use or ships as trade protection cruisers, operating independently, or as part of small TGs, like the interwar RN Crown Colony, and Leander class cruisers. They need to be able to protect themselves from smaller/equal combatants, but aren't expected to fight carrier strike groups/large SAGs alone.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem with ASW specialization at the expense of AAW/ASuW is it makes our boats vulnerable when doing the jobs we actually do with them.

The age of massed convoys crossing the Atlantic like in WWII is in the past. Cargo ships move faster than shipboard ASW can be conducted, and we have aircraft/hydrophone coverage across the Atlantic. The RCN needs to move beyond The Battle of The Atlantic mindset.

We actually use or ships as trade protection cruisers, operating independently, or as part of small TGs, like the interwar RN Crown Colony, and Leander class cruisers. They need to be able to protect themselves from smaller/equal combatants, but aren't expected to fight carrier strike groups/large SAGs alone.

I disagree. Should a conflict kick off again in either there Pacific or Europe convoys will again become how we keep supply lines open.

North Americas big flex is it's ability to keep conflict off of our soil. And that's done via moving war making to other lands, via convoy.

Sadly we will probably have to learn this lesson again.

We use our ships as we do now because generally peaceful oceans allow us to. It's not a method of wartime operation so much as peaceful luxury, at the moment.

 

[GR66]

The problem with ASW specialization at the expense of AAW/ASuW is it makes our boats vulnerable when doing the jobs we actually do with them.

The age of massed convoys crossing the Atlantic like in WWII is in the past. Cargo ships move faster than shipboard ASW can be conducted, and we have aircraft/hydrophone coverage across the Atlantic. The RCN needs to move beyond The Battle of The Atlantic mindset.

We actually use or ships as trade protection cruisers, operating independently, or as part of small TGs, like the interwar RN Crown Colony, and Leander class cruisers. They need to be able to protect themselves from smaller/equal combatants, but aren't expected to fight carrier strike groups/large SAGs alone.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we start pumping out platforms that ONLY do ASW just that it should be a primary capability for any of our new platforms and that we don't sacrifice ASW capability for the sake of all-purpose, exquisite ships.

One thing ASW needs is quantity. There is lots of water out there and you need lots of ships, aircraft, sensors, USVs, UUV's, etc. to cover it.

Personally I'd be happy to cut back our CSC buy from 15 to 12 and replace the Kingstons with 12 x Corvettes/Frigates. Quantity helps with your AAW and ASuW too. Spreads your weapons out among a larger number of platforms so a single ship taken out doesn't impact the TF's overall capability as much.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we start pumping out platforms that ONLY do ASW just that it should be a primary capability for any of our new platforms and that we don't sacrifice ASW capability for the sake of all-purpose, exquisite ships.

One thing ASW needs is quantity. There is lots of water out there and you need lots of ships, aircraft, sensors, USVs, UUV's, etc. to cover it.

Personally I'd be happy to cut back our CSC buy from 15 to 12 and replace the Kingstons with 12 x Corvettes/Frigates. Quantity helps with your AAW and ASuW too. Spreads your weapons out among a larger number of platforms so a single ship taken out doesn't impact the TF's overall capability as much.

Thank you, articulated better than me.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

Reeeeallly???

 

[Halifax Tar]

Reeeeallly???

That's the irony, we never have and never will project power. We have and will again project power as a coalition though.

 

[Kirkhill]

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…

But....

Smaller vessels equal smaller targets, and shallower draught makes them more manoeuverable in amongst tropical island archipelagos. Just the thing for escorting landing craft and Light Amphibious Warships.

Add in some expeditionary shore bases and a couple of large Motherships and you can sustain a few flotillas of MMBs (Motor Missile Boats) and Corvettes.

Scandihoovian solution

Aussie Support Vessels

US Landing Vessels

With and without robots.

The Yanks have been having difficulty getting Congress to pay for the Island Hopping Indo-Pacific Campaign. Perhaps they have convinced the Aussies to tackle the Inshore work in exchange for a deal on the Nukes.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Canada needs to think how it's fits as a piece into the puzzle. We are not the puzzle itself.

We are never going act or deploy independently, it's just not going to happen, and never has. We are always part of a larger coalition. The Yanks are have the AWW covered, but are mediocre at ASW... So let's fill that gap.

So, we can chose to be A 1 tops at something like ASW, with some AWW capability or we can be mediocre at all things and pretend.

It's like the big cods idea of the all singing all dancing big honking ship. Great in theory, awful in practice.

From where I sit concentration of effort is key. Find a role and be the GD best there is at it.

I've always thought the Rivers would be a great replacement for the Kingstons... Can we keep them as the Kingston class ? Kinda like having my home town in the fleet.

I agree although in my opinion, Canada needs to be a puzzle piece with more versatility than just fitting into anti-submarine warfare. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Americans are mediocre at ASW however, Canada bringing a capable multi-role vessel to the equation is a massive help not only to the Americans but chiefly to our European NATO allies. One can't assume that the Americans will always be able to provide a substantial AAW escort to any and every task force, this is where the value of a more capable vessel operated by Canada comes in. In a situation where there is weaker AAW, we provide a very essential boost to that capability and in a scenario where there is still a strong AAW presence, we further add to its effectiveness due to our potent sensor suite, interlinked command & control and weapons system. Compare CSC to a lot of European frigates and even destroyers and you can see the value that even one of our ships would provide to any task force. I don't think its enough these days to pick a role and keep beating it to death, the way modern naval combat is going, we need a baseline capability to survive that is far in excess of previous generations. CSC will be a world premier ASW platform considering the pedigree it retains from Type 26 but our design is also far more survivable and capable than the baseline. There is no being mediocre at all things with the size of warships increasing, you can fit a more than workable capability for the majority of roles into one platform, its a trend we are seeing. We took a very good ASW platform and transformed it into a capable multi-role vessel, barring some catastrophe with the design, I think its a very wise strategy for the RCN and a proper choice.

Rivers would be a perfect replacement for the Kingston class in my opinion but that's a whole different thing.

Personally I'd be happy to cut back our CSC buy from 15 to 12 and replace the Kingstons with 12 x Corvettes/Frigates. Quantity helps with your AAW and ASuW too. Spreads your weapons out among a larger number of platforms so a single ship taken out doesn't impact the TF's overall capability as much.

While the raw monetary figures might suggest such a thing is possible, in practice I think such a thing would be unworkable. Part of the draw of a Kingston replacement would be a cheap and cheerful little vessel which can take over the former vessels roles to a more effective degree while not becoming a financial burden on the fleet. I'd say any kind of corvette or frigate able to meaningfully contribute to AAW, ASuW, ASW, etc is going to be far out of the financial wheelhouse of the typical Kingston replacement candidate like a River class. Adding these capabilities are not cheap and to further increase the crew requirements, logistics chain, training, etc required is an issue. You get to the point where once a certain amount of capability gets added, you've sunk enough money where you start putting more money/equipment aboard to increase their survivability. Better radar, more softkill measures, more CIWS, etc. Things start snowballing quickly, the line between cheap and cheerful and properly capable blurs very quickly these days. It also is breaking one of the key concerns for the CSC program, keeping a single homogenous class of main RCN combatants to simplify everything. Add on the fact that these ships are going to be required to be domestically build and modified, you can say goodbye to any kind of reasonable timeframe and cost effectiveness. Cutting ships off the CSC buy will also increase the cost of those ships due to the losses to the economy of scale alongside losing you ships at the apex of their construction, when you are getting the cheapest ships built the quickest. At best you might break even, losing whatever savings you would get but at worst you could go in the hole. We're already looking at 15 very capable combatants, that is a substantial force numbers wise in itself.

In a perfect world maybe something like this could work but as it stands now, I don't see an alternate combatant class being particularly worthwhile or possible for the RCN in any aspect right now or in the immediate future. CSC well suits the RCN and I think we should focus on a Kingston replacement that is rather tight and limited in scope to keep costs and the program as a whole under control.

 

[Furniture]

I disagree. Should a conflict kick off again in either there Pacific or Europe convoys will again become how we keep supply lines open.

North Americas big flex is it's ability to keep conflict off of our soil. And that's done via moving war making to other lands, via convoy.

Sadly we will probably have to learn this lesson again.

We use our ships as we do now because generally peaceful oceans allow us to. It's not a method of wartime operation so much as peaceful luxury, at the moment.

I'm not suggesting convoys and maritime resupply won't be used, I'm simply pointing out that ships sailing in an ASW screen are unlikely to be the primary ASW asset used to protect the convoy, and that a jack-of-all-trades ship is sufficient for the task. Remember that our big buddy down south has a boat load of ASW A/C, and SSNs specifically for the task.

If the war becomes more drawn out, we can smash out a modern corvette built to modified civilian standards, like we did back in the 40s. Like most surface combatants in WWII, our CSCs will end up doing other tasks that can't be done with cheap and cheerful ASW sacrificial lambs.

I'm not arguing that ASW isn't important, I'm just arguing that the WWII/Cold War mindset of the RCN being an ASW only force is dated. When we have 15 CSCs in service, we will have a fleet of surface combatants close to equal to that of the RN. Compared to the USA and China our fleet is nothing, compared to most of the rest of the world 15 CSCs will be a powerful fleet.

Also, to circle back to my point about the CSC being trade protection cruisers, the likelihood of a massive war on the scale of WWII is still quite small, but the likelihood of us needing to contribute more independent combatants to the role of trade protection is quite high. Canada is far better off planning for the likely scenario, rather than putting all of our eggs in the "maybe, but we're likely all dead from a nuclear apocalypse by that stage anyway" basket.

 

[Grimey]

Funny thing about this one.....I really don't mind buying sheet steel from China. Just have super good QC on the stuff. Tooling up any Canadian steel maker for a one time warship program is not good value. Its just steel the cheapest part of the build.

The new ‘blue’ bridge in Victoria enters the chat.

 

[GR66]

I agree although in my opinion, Canada needs to be a puzzle piece with more versatility than just fitting into anti-submarine warfare. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Americans are mediocre at ASW however, Canada bringing a capable multi-role vessel to the equation is a massive help not only to the Americans but chiefly to our European NATO allies. One can't assume that the Americans will always be able to provide a substantial AAW escort to any and every task force, this is where the value of a more capable vessel operated by Canada comes in. In a situation where there is weaker AAW, we provide a very essential boost to that capability and in a scenario where there is still a strong AAW presence, we further add to its effectiveness due to our potent sensor suite, interlinked command & control and weapons system. Compare CSC to a lot of European frigates and even destroyers and you can see the value that even one of our ships would provide to any task force. I don't think its enough these days to pick a role and keep beating it to death, the way modern naval combat is going, we need a baseline capability to survive that is far in excess of previous generations. CSC will be a world premier ASW platform considering the pedigree it retains from Type 26 but our design is also far more survivable and capable than the baseline. There is no being mediocre at all things with the size of warships increasing, you can fit a more than workable capability for the majority of roles into one platform, its a trend we are seeing. We took a very good ASW platform and transformed it into a capable multi-role vessel, barring some catastrophe with the design, I think its a very wise strategy for the RCN and a proper choice.

Rivers would be a perfect replacement for the Kingston class in my opinion but that's a whole different thing.



While the raw monetary figures might suggest such a thing is possible, in practice I think such a thing would be unworkable. Part of the draw of a Kingston replacement would be a cheap and cheerful little vessel which can take over the former vessels roles to a more effective degree while not becoming a financial burden on the fleet. I'd say any kind of corvette or frigate able to meaningfully contribute to AAW, ASuW, ASW, etc is going to be far out of the financial wheelhouse of the typical Kingston replacement candidate like a River class. Adding these capabilities are not cheap and to further increase the crew requirements, logistics chain, training, etc required is an issue. You get to the point where once a certain amount of capability gets added, you've sunk enough money where you start putting more money/equipment aboard to increase their survivability. Better radar, more softkill measures, more CIWS, etc. Things start snowballing quickly, the line between cheap and cheerful and properly capable blurs very quickly these days. It also is breaking one of the key concerns for the CSC program, keeping a single homogenous class of main RCN combatants to simplify everything. Add on the fact that these ships are going to be required to be domestically build and modified, you can say goodbye to any kind of reasonable timeframe and cost effectiveness. Cutting ships off the CSC buy will also increase the cost of those ships due to the losses to the economy of scale alongside losing you ships at the apex of their construction, when you are getting the cheapest ships built the quickest. At best you might break even, losing whatever savings you would get but at worst you could go in the hole. We're already looking at 15 very capable combatants, that is a substantial force numbers wise in itself.

In a perfect world maybe something like this could work but as it stands now, I don't see an alternate combatant class being particularly worthwhile or possible for the RCN in any aspect right now or in the immediate future. CSC well suits the RCN and I think we should focus on a Kingston replacement that is rather tight and limited in scope to keep costs and the program as a whole under control.

You make it sound like people are suggesting we scrap the CSCs. Nobody is. They are a great platform and we should definitely have them. Fifteen combatants for two oceans in a war though isn't enough to actually make a significant contribution. Seven per coast? Four deployed and three in resupply/refit/repair? We simply need more ships.

I'm pretty sure we can't afford another dozen CSC's so if we want more ships they have to be smaller/cheaper. Of course no warship is going to be "cheap" but that's just the reality. Like with conversations about the Army, if you want to actually have a force that can contribute you need to spend money. 2% of GDP enters the chat. Crewing definitely is a major problem. The reality is we simply need a larger RCN so we need to either figure out our recruiting and retention issues or we have to start investing heavily in unmanned systems.

I'm a fan of the River 2 Class and I'm definitely not one of those that suggests there isn't a very important role for non-combatant vessels like the Rivers, Kingstons, AOPS in a Navy but with the World looking like a major military conflict between the West and China/Russia is a clear possibility the priority has to be on fighting ships.

If the war becomes more drawn out, we can smash out a modern corvette built to modified civilian standards, like we did back in the 40s. Like most surface combatants in WWII, our CSCs will end up doing other tasks that can't be done with cheap and cheerful ASW sacrificial lambs.

The suggestion that we can "smash out" a modern corvette to cover our losses/requirements in case of a major war is simply fantasy.

 

[Rainbow1910]

You make it sound like people are suggesting we scrap the CSCs. Nobody is. They are a great platform and we should definitely have them. Fifteen combatants for two oceans in a war though isn't enough to actually make a significant contribution. Seven per coast? Four deployed and three in resupply/refit/repair? We simply need more ships.

I'm pretty sure we can't afford another dozen CSC's so if we want more ships they have to be smaller/cheaper. Of course no warship is going to be "cheap" but that's just the reality. Like with conversations about the Army, if you want to actually have a force that can contribute you need to spend money. 2% of GDP enters the chat. Crewing definitely is a major problem. The reality is we simply need a larger RCN so we need to either figure out our recruiting and retention issues or we have to start investing heavily in unmanned systems.

I'm a fan of the River 2 Class and I'm definitely not one of those that suggests there isn't a very important role for non-combatant vessels like the Rivers, Kingstons, AOPS in a Navy but with the World looking like a major military conflict between the West and China/Russia is a clear possibility the priority has to be on fighting ships.

My point is to try and get across that I think overspecialized ships generally don't have the survivability to hold up in a peer conflict, hence my defense of CSC as I think its an example of something that is a solution to that issue. 15 is about as good as we can hope for, Canada never has and likely never will have enough combatants to properly have enough vessels during a major conflict. WWII was about as close as we got, we only got to that number through frantic crash building which I agree, likely will never be especially plausible again. For better or for worse, its what we are hopefully getting. I don't see it as realistic or plausible to try and shoot for a second type of combatant for the many reasons I've discussed previously. CSC is already asking a lot, an entirely second class of combatants would require some awkward questions to be asked which likely wouldn't bode well for CSC. In an ideal world we should be having more capability for wartime with more capable wide scale fleet compositions but also in an ideal world, Canada would have a hell of a lot of capability far in excess of what we have to make do with now. Non-combatants are about the best I see us getting.

 

[Furniture]

The suggestion that we can "smash out" a modern corvette to cover our losses/requirements in case of a major war is simply fantasy.

The suggestion that Canada will be required/expected to contribute a large number of ASW ships to protect convoys is also fantasy. One fantasy gives us a fleet of capable warships that are useful for the tasks the RCN actually does right now, the other gives us less capable ships that are too specialized in a single warfare role.

In the event of a world war, we are better off with a fleet of capable warships than we are with a mixed fleet of a few capable ships, and a lot of floating targets for aircraft.

The reality is, if the RCN chooses to go with a second class of less capable ships, the GoC and voters will decide for the RCN that less capable ships are all that the RCN needs.

 

[GR66]

My point is to try and get across that I think overspecialized ships generally don't have the survivability to hold up in a peer conflict, hence my defense of CSC as I think its an example of something that is a solution to that issue. 15 is about as good as we can hope for, Canada never has and likely never will have enough combatants to properly have enough vessels during a major conflict. WWII was about as close as we got, we only got to that number through frantic crash building which I agree, likely will never be especially plausible again. For better or for worse, its what we are hopefully getting. I don't see it as realistic or plausible to try and shoot for a second type of combatant for the many reasons I've discussed previously. CSC is already asking a lot, an entirely second class of combatants would require some awkward questions to be asked which likely wouldn't bode well for CSC. In an ideal world we should be having more capability for wartime with more capable wide scale fleet compositions but also in an ideal world, Canada would have a hell of a lot of capability far in excess of what we have to make do with now. Non-combatants are about the best I see us getting.

Channelling my inner @KevinB ...thinking that 15 x CSC's is a credible military contribution is laughable. Canada is simply not a serious country when it comes to military capability. We've unfortunately been conditioned to delude ourselves that the absolutely minimal contributions our military forces are able to make in a major war are meaningful. If we actually want to be capable of making a difference we have to do significantly more.

 

[Lumber]

Reeeeallly???

Yes.

We are regularly deploying our ships to the Eastern Med, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea, Sea of Japan, Strait of Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, northern Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa, East Africa, the Caribbean, and before the war, the Black Sea. Our ships conduct coutne piracy patrols, counter narcotics patrols, counter smuggling patrols, ISR missions, NEOs, HADR, and just general "shows of force" in the face of both the Chinese and Russians.

By comparison, some other countries with bigger navies than ours spend far more time in their home waters than we do.

If that's not "projecting power" I don't know what is.

 

[Lumber]

Channelling my inner @KevinB ...thinking that 15 x CSC's is a credible military contribution is laughable. Canada is simply not a serious country when it comes to military capability. We've unfortunately been conditioned to delude ourselves that the absolutely minimal contributions our military forces are able to make in a major war are meaningful. If we actually want to be capable of making a difference we have to do significantly more.

While our ships hulls may be in rough shape, our frigate have the best weapons ans sensors available on the market. We even have some stuff that's better than what the Americans have, and our ships are superior in many ways to what, for example, the French have in the same ass. CSC will be next level, and as someone already pointed out, if they come with the weapons and sensor load out as currently design, they will be one of the most powerful warships in the world for their class. 15 of THOSE is more than an respectable contribution for a country of our population and Gdp. In fact PER CAPITA, Canada's 12 frigates place us at 5th in the world for number of Frigates.