Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Kirkhill]

Lower cost kinetic counters?

US Army to purchase thousands of counter-UAV interceptors from Raytheon

The US Army plans to purchase 6,700 Coyote jet-powered drone interceptors from Raytheon, including an explosive warhead variant and a secretive "non-kinetic" model that uses electronic warfare or directed energy.

www.flightglobal.com

Halcon and Rheinmetall Air Defence team up for the Skynex - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini Halcon, the company part of the EDGE group, specialised in guided weapons, unveiled at IDEX its SkyKnight

www.edrmagazine.eu

To extend the system range Rheinmetall considered adding a missile system to the Skynex, and started cooperation with Denel of South Africa, which proposed its Cheetah. This programme has however been since discontinued, and now the German company has teamed up with Halcon, and is working to integrate the SkyKnight into the Skynex. The new missile is 2.2 meters long, the body diameter is 115 mm while the wingspan is 300 mm, weight launch being 35 kg. No indication about the maximum speed was provided. Halcon proposes a 20-foot container as launcher, 60 missiles being hosted in a 6×10 cells matrix, one section of the container hosting the power supply system, the secure data-link to keep communications with the Skymaster, and the electronics to sequence fire the missiles. A Skynex battery can include up to four Oerkikon Revolver Guns and four SkyKnight launchers, a total of 240 missiles being thus available.

Each container can launch in sequence up to 20 missiles, the system being able to handle up to 80 missiles in flight at the same time. According to data provided by Halcon, the SkyKnight can cope with rotary wing aircraft and UAVs up to 10 km, against fixed wing aircraft at 8-10 km, against precision guided munitions and cruise missiles at 6 km, and against rocket-artillery-mortar threats at 4 km range. At shorter ranges it is the turn of Revolver Guns to take over the burden, these being capable to operate against fixed and rotary wing aircraft up to 4 – 4.5 km, and against mortars and small UAVs at 1.5 km, generating a wall of tungsten thanks to their 1,000 rounds per minute rate of fire and the use of AHEAD 35 mm ammunition.

 

[Underway]

@Stoker @Oldgateboatdriver @Cloud Cover from earlier....

The 30mm is being placed on both sides of the hangar giving it a high overwatch position with an almost 200 degree arc of fire from about 45 degrees forward port/stbd to the opposite quarter (and likely further depending on where they place them).

As for their effectiveness they have two things that are interesting. The point and shoot system (I think made by Sea Owl), which uses a handheld camera that any crew can grab and point at a target. This cues the OPS room cameras which can if necessary slew a gun onto the target (or slew an EOIR asset onto the person in the water...). The other is the ammo. Guns really are only as effective as their ammo is now. There is a gigantic amount of ammo out there the would be useful against various targets (my fav is supercavitating rounds).

The high position of the guns on the ship means that your arcs of fire to a small boat in the water (Crewed or uncrewed) is less likely to be obscured by lower sea states. Is it the answer? Likely not on its own, I would trust EW + guns to tag team such attacks.

 

[Underway]

Lower cost kinetic counters?

US Army to purchase thousands of counter-UAV interceptors from Raytheon

The US Army plans to purchase 6,700 Coyote jet-powered drone interceptors from Raytheon, including an explosive warhead variant and a secretive "non-kinetic" model that uses electronic warfare or directed energy.

www.flightglobal.com

Halcon and Rheinmetall Air Defence team up for the Skynex - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini Halcon, the company part of the EDGE group, specialised in guided weapons, unveiled at IDEX its SkyKnight

www.edrmagazine.eu

I honestly can see something like a callipoe drone launcher from ships, that cold launch drones, then the wings pop out (switchblade style) and then they go do their various tasks. Or even a "127mm" launch drone system, that uses the main gun to shoot out drones instead of rounds. Likely needs to be a much slower launch but might be something to think about.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Both can use the ships main sensors (Germans do this with SEA RAM IIRC). CAMM also can engage multiple targets from multiple directions and SEARAM as you can see is unidirectional. CAMM has a much longer range allowing for the potential of re-engagement. Also CAMM is flush deck, which has its own advantaged when you are looking at antenna/rader placement.

I like SEA RAM, but I like CAMM better.

SeaRAM is the 11 cell module which is integrated into the Phalanx mount, that system itself has the ability to act autonomously with its own sensors. RAM itself uses the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System with 21 missiles and cannot engage without the ships sensors acting for it. The Germans are using the latter on all of their ships I believe.

SeaRAM has the advantage of being able to be reloaded at sea compared to CAMM but one SeaRAM launcher per side would be two less missiles than the centralized 24 CAMM amidships. Obviously the option is to buy SeaRAM as well and put them on the ships

Actually it’s fairly easy to look up if you have access. I am sure Canada will be paying more than others simply due to acquisition numbers though.

I’m seeing the current potential for an overwhelming non swarm number of OWUAS, when you start getting into AI/ML controlled swarms, missiles options are a non starter. Even using large number of ships to engage.

Unless you start running a nuclear power plant and multiple DE systems, that option isn’t going to provide the defense either.

I don’t have a good answer to counter the threats, I just come up with threats

There is no publicly available cost figures available for CAMM so unless somebody can find any, it is a bit of a moot point. I see the current potential of some of these systems however, I caution people against going too heavily into one side or the other considering how these arms races always go. If you take these threats to their extreme, effectively no ships anywhere are safe. I think that is unrealistic as it assumes ships (massive platforms with ample power generation) cannot develop ways to soft and hard counter these proposed and current threats.

 

[KevinB]

There is no publicly available cost figures available for CAMM so unless somebody can find any, it is a bit of a moot point.

I was not referring to OS data.

I see the current potential of some of these systems however, I caution people against going too heavily into one side or the other considering how these arms races always go. If you take these threats to their extreme, effectively no ships anywhere are safe. I think that is unrealistic as it assumes ships (massive platforms with ample power generation) cannot develop ways to soft and hard counter these proposed and current threats.

Rock, paper, scissors.
The nature of warfare is to attempt to exploit weaknesses on one side, so that leads to the ever changing needs of capabilities (or weights of capabilities)

Looking at some of the DE power consumption requirements, I’m not sure what the excess is on ships that are already running flank speed and running their radar etc - I saw one report that had discussed the possibility of returns to CGN’s to fill that void, which left me with the impression that the conventional power supply on most warships then wasn’t enough to supply all the wants from that side of the house. But admittedly I’m not a naval guy by any stretch so I may have jumped to a conclusion that wasn’t supported.

 

[Underway]

SeaRAM is the 11 cell module which is integrated into the Phalanx mount, that system itself has the ability to act autonomously with its own sensors. RAM itself uses the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System with 21 missiles and cannot engage without the ships sensors acting for it. The Germans are using the latter on all of their ships I believe.

SeaRAM has the advantage of being able to be reloaded at sea compared to CAMM but one SeaRAM launcher per side would be two less missiles than the centralized 24 CAMM amidships. Obviously the option is to buy SeaRAM as well and put them on the ships


There is no publicly available cost figures available for CAMM so unless somebody can find any, it is a bit of a moot point. I see the current potential of some of these systems however, I caution people against going too heavily into one side or the other considering how these arms races always go. If you take these threats to their extreme, effectively no ships anywhere are safe. I think that is unrealistic as it assumes ships (massive platforms with ample power generation) cannot develop ways to soft and hard counter these proposed and current threats.

I don't know but I'm willing to bet that CAMM has a higher PKill than RAM as well. Interestingly enough you can load RAM into ExLS, as well as Longbow Hellfires and a few other things. I don't know what their pitch over looks like though so CAMM is probably the way to go.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I honestly can see something like a callipoe drone launcher from ships, that cold launch drones, then the wings pop out (switchblade style) and then they go do their various tasks. Or even a "127mm" launch drone system, that uses the main gun to shoot out drones instead of rounds. Likely needs to be a much slower launch but might be something to think about.

There are some systems that could be fitted to various vessels which are light and do offer reasonable closer range capability against drones. Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System is something which has interested me, taking existing 70mm Hydra unguided rockets and turning them into laser guided munitions with a range of up to 5km currently. There has been studies for a new rocket motor to get the range out as far as 15km and given their lightweight nature alongside a cost of apparently $27,000 USD per shot, they could prove to be a relevant close in defense layer for naval vessels.

 

[Kirkhill]

Next-gen warships will need half the crew of current vessels​

Defence contractor Babcock hopes to build frigates manned by just 50 sailors

Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR12 February 2024 • 3:00pm

Next-gen warships will need half the crew of current vessels

Defence contractor Babcock hopes to build frigates manned by just 50 sailors

www.telegraph.co.uk

The next generation of British frigates will be crewed by as few as 50 sailors amid a recruitment crisis at the Royal Navy, according to defence contractor Babcock.

John Howie, the company’s corporate affairs chief, said technological advances were expected to bring crewing requirements even further down following significant reductions on the most recent vessels.

He said while the Type 31 frigates currently being built for the Navy require a core crew of about 105 sailors, the company believes the next generation – often referred to as Type 32 – should only require half that number.

Meanwhile, the Type 23 frigates have a complement of about 185 crew.

“Type 31s have a core crew that is much lower than Type 23. So some of it you’re getting through remote monitoring and compartments, some of it through automation.

“People talk about a Type 32 frigate – we like to refer to it as Type 31 batch two. We’re doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two.”

Mr Howie added that even bigger crew reductions could potentially be delivered, taking numbers below 50 in future, but that this would depend on decisions about how to manage damage control in modern combat, for example to put out fires and deal with hull breaches.

Mr Howie said: “That’s something I think the Navy are looking at. To what extent, in the age of hypersonic missiles, do you just have to assume that ships are, if they get hit, gone? And therefore they just need to stay afloat long enough to get the crew off?

One and done disposable ships?


So the Type 32 GP Frigate would have a crew of 50 or less.
The Type 32 is actually the Type 31 Arrowhead Block 2.
The Type 31 has a planned crew of 105.
The Type 31 evolved from the Huitfeldt/Absalon ships
Absalon had a core crew of 100 when commissioned in 2005.

The ships embark additional mission personnel - up to a total complement of 300.

The Polish variant, the Miecznik is expected to have a crew of 100 to 120 with accommodation for 160.

This comment is also interesting

“If you take HMS Queen Elizabeth, she was designed with a core crew of about 750. But on the old carriers it was a couple of thousand.

“A lot of that’s been done… through the highly-mechanised weapons handling system. On a US carrier they’ve got 250 people doing something that needs just a handful on Queen Elizabeth, because it’s been mechanised.

 

[Furniture]

Next-gen warships will need half the crew of current vessels

Defence contractor Babcock hopes to build frigates manned by just 50 sailors

www.telegraph.co.uk

One and done disposable ships?


So the Type 32 GP Frigate would have a crew of 50 or less.
The Type 32 is actually the Type 31 Arrowhead Block 2.
The Type 31 has a planned crew of 105.
The Type 31 evolved from the Huitfeldt/Absalon ships
Absalon had a core crew of 100 when commissioned in 2005.

The ships embark additional mission personnel - up to a total complement of 300.

The Polish variant, the Miecznik is expected to have a crew of 100 to 120 with accommodation for 160.

This comment is also interesting

Automation works, until it doesn't. A mechanical failure on a ship that has too few crew to do things "the old fashioned way" will quickly find itself headed to port, whereas a ship with enough people to do things handraulically can stay on station and conduct operations.

How do you conduct DC and maintain action stations with only 50 people on the ship? Firefighting takes a lot of out people, and if you've only got two to four attack teams available you may not be able to save the ship.

There is always a trade-off, but manufacturers trying to sell you fancy/expensive new toys aren't going to highlight those trade-offs that work against them.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I am skeptical of having that low of crew manning requirements even just from a basic operations function, not even getting into concerns about long term viability, crew stresses and damage control hazards. Iver Huitfeldt initially had 100 crew aboard but roughly 20 more were added (largely to the engineering depts) due to the original requirements being unrealistic. This ended up happening with Zumwalt now and I have even heard rumblings that the enlarged crew size they have now isn't entirely sufficient as it sits. Many of these ships seem to end up requiring more crew to simply function in the end as these figures are very optimistic.

 

[NavyShooter]

Automation is good. It allowed the reduction of risk from having ship's crews in engineering spaces. IPMS/IMCS let the Navy move from having a bunch of stokers on watch in the spaces, to having a bunch of stokers watching the spaces.

Looking at the civilian cruise and cargo ships, the engineering plants and such are highly reliable, and highly automated.

However.

Looking at the civilian cargo/tanker ships that have been recently hit in the Houthi strikes, one can observe that having a crew of 30-ish onboard a huge ship results in NOT having enough personnel onboard to control a fire.

A warship that has a crew of 50 is certainly do-able, but let us look at what that means (looking at a reduced crew size):

From the crew of 50:
CO
XO
Cox'n
PA/Medic
Engineering Officer
Chief Eng
Combat Officer
Cook

Take those folks right off the top and you're left with 42 people left to stand watches. That's 21 people, able to be augmented at Action Stations by 21 more.

That isn't a lot.

The Engineering Department would probably be 5 on watch (3 on consoles, 2 roundsmen) the OPS team would probably be 10, and the bridge would probably be 6, which gives you your 21.

Action Stations - surge another 5-6 into OPS and the Bridge and you're left with a single Section Base of about 15 people.

Anything more than a single fire/flood and you're tapped out unless someone is nearby to help you out.

 

[GR66]

Automation works, until it doesn't. A mechanical failure on a ship that has too few crew to do things "the old fashioned way" will quickly find itself headed to port, whereas a ship with enough people to do things handraulically can stay on station and conduct operations.

How do you conduct DC and maintain action stations with only 50 people on the ship? Firefighting takes a lot of out people, and if you've only got two to four attack teams available you may not be able to save the ship.

There is always a trade-off, but manufacturers trying to sell you fancy/expensive new toys aren't going to highlight those trade-offs that work against them.

From the original article posted by @Kirkhill

Mr Howie said: “That’s something I think the Navy are looking at. To what extent, in the age of hypersonic missiles, do you just have to assume that ships are, if they get hit, gone? And therefore they just need to stay afloat long enough to get the crew off?

I can understand the thinking behind this type of comment but I think their big mistake is thinking that this kind of mindset can be applied to something like a General Purpose Frigate like the Type 31/32.

They're optimizing the design and crew requirements around the "hopefully never" case scenario and ignoring all the real life scenarios where a ship like this WILL require a larger crew.

If you're going to take the "attritable", minimally manned approach then you should apply it to a ship that's ONLY going to be used in a wartime scenario. Perhaps something like an arsenal ship USV that has the single wartime role of providing extra missiles cells to a fleet. Maybe one or two will break down on the way to the target area but losses are expected in wartime.

But for a combatant ship that has to undertake a wide variety of missions the other 99.9% of the time that you're not at war I don't think it makes any sense.

 

[calculus]

SeaRAM is the 11 cell module which is integrated into the Phalanx mount, that system itself has the ability to act autonomously with its own sensors. RAM itself uses the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System with 21 missiles and cannot engage without the ships sensors acting for it. The Germans are using the latter on all of their ships I believe.

SeaRAM has the advantage of being able to be reloaded at sea compared to CAMM but one SeaRAM launcher per side would be two less missiles than the centralized 24 CAMM amidships. Obviously the option is to buy SeaRAM as well and put them on the ships


There is no publicly available cost figures available for CAMM so unless somebody can find any, it is a bit of a moot point. I see the current potential of some of these systems however, I caution people against going too heavily into one side or the other considering how these arms races always go. If you take these threats to their extreme, effectively no ships anywhere are safe. I think that is unrealistic as it assumes ships (massive platforms with ample power generation) cannot develop ways to soft and hard counter these proposed and current threats.

The gang over at UK Defence Forum suggest the cost of a CAMM Missile is around 500K British pounds, or about $850K CAN at today's exchange. If true, that's pretty cheap compared to ESSM Blk 2 ($1.795 Mil) or SM2 ($2.1Mil):

Missile Interceptors by Cost – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

However, the issue of cost is a bit of a red herring, because naval doctrine is to neutralize a threat as far from the ship as possible, ideally in the outer layer. Therefore, when a target is positively identified as a threat, it will always be the most expensive (i.e. most capable, farthest range) missiles fired first, as no Captain would risk his/her ship to save money.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Automation works, until it doesn't. A mechanical failure on a ship that has too few crew to do things "the old fashioned way" will quickly find itself headed to port, whereas a ship with enough people to do things handraulically can stay on station and conduct operations.

How do you conduct DC and maintain action stations with only 50 people on the ship? Firefighting takes a lot of out people, and if you've only got two to four attack teams available you may not be able to save the ship.

There is always a trade-off, but manufacturers trying to sell you fancy/expensive new toys aren't going to highlight those trade-offs that work against them.

In simple terms you don't do any manual fire fighting at those numbers, and you have a huge amount of fitted systems, and hopefully invest more in prevention.

In practical terms the level of automation is limited, because we could never afford to fully automate things and there aren't enough hours in the day to maintain it (because you don't have the people/skills to do it down at sea), so it breaks down pretty fast and the assumptions that things are safe because you automated fall apart with no one to step in as a plan B.

Even post fire fighting isn't simple, can take a really long time (hours/days) to overhaul and desmoke/gas free and look at repairs, so essentially they are set up to take hits, and maybe still fight a bit, but at best give the crew time to evacuate, because you don't have people to do the 'recoverability' side to keep up with float/move/fight. Not quite disposable, but 'glass cannons' is probably a fair description, and why each time it's been tried it very quickly goes back to bigger crews.

Even on highly automated commercial ships there is limits to recoverability on the 'move' portion and they only look at float/move with very basic emergencies. They have enough reserve stability to stay floating long enough to give the crew time to get off if things go sideways, or shelter in place while they wait for help.

One of those things that make sense on paper, if you assume nothing breaks and if it does it will get fixed right away, and you'll never have obsolete items you can't fix or any other everyday issue. There are also very basic things like you end up with 5 layers of stuff so you have to take apart 3 other systems to fix something (like the one car we had where we had to take off the front passenger side tire and hub to change the alternator).

 

[Kirkhill]

Automation is good. It allowed the reduction of risk from having ship's crews in engineering spaces. IPMS/IMCS let the Navy move from having a bunch of stokers on watch in the spaces, to having a bunch of stokers watching the spaces.

Looking at the civilian cruise and cargo ships, the engineering plants and such are highly reliable, and highly automated.

However.

Looking at the civilian cargo/tanker ships that have been recently hit in the Houthi strikes, one can observe that having a crew of 30-ish onboard a huge ship results in NOT having enough personnel onboard to control a fire.

A warship that has a crew of 50 is certainly do-able, but let us look at what that means (looking at a reduced crew size):

From the crew of 50:
CO
XO
Cox'n
PA/Medic
Engineering Officer
Chief Eng
Combat Officer
Cook

Take those folks right off the top and you're left with 42 people left to stand watches. That's 21 people, able to be augmented at Action Stations by 21 more.

That isn't a lot.

The Engineering Department would probably be 5 on watch (3 on consoles, 2 roundsmen) the OPS team would probably be 10, and the bridge would probably be 6, which gives you your 21.

Action Stations - surge another 5-6 into OPS and the Bridge and you're left with a single Section Base of about 15 people.

Anything more than a single fire/flood and you're tapped out unless someone is nearby to help you out.

Sticking my neck out here and inviting the axe....


HMS Tamar and her sister River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels are undertaking long-range extended cruises. I am going to assume that your list of roles is going to be pretty similar regardless of the displacement of the vessel.

Tamar's crew is given as 34 to 45. She has the ability to embark an additional 50 troops.

The RCN's own AOPS is undertaking long range cruises with a crew of 65.

I can appreciate the difference in number and complexity of the combat systems --- to a point. I am familiar with pairs of operators managing systems with hundreds of I/O for 8 to 10 hour shifts.


And I could go more extreme yet and refer to civilian transport ships of all classes with crews of a couple of dozen or less.

I concede that a big difference is that the civvy crew is not tasked with saving the ship.

Is it worth the extra dollars and crew to harden naval ships?

 

[Kirkhill]

The gang over at UK Defence Forum suggest the cost of a CAMM Missile is around 500K British pounds, or about $850K CAN at today's exchange. If true, that's pretty cheap compared to ESSM Blk 2 ($1.795 Mil) or SM2 ($2.1Mil):

Missile Interceptors by Cost – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

However, the issue of cost is a bit of a red herring, because naval doctrine is to neutralize a threat as far from the ship as possible, ideally in the outer layer. Therefore, when a target is positively identified as a threat, it will always be the most expensive (i.e. most capable, farthest range) missiles fired first, as no Captain would risk his/her ship to save money.

Insightful.

 

[Furniture]

Sticking my neck out here and inviting the axe....


HMS Tamar and her sister River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels are undertaking long-range extended cruises. I am going to assume that your list of roles is going to be pretty similar regardless of the displacement of the vessel.

Tamar's crew is given as 34 to 45. She has the ability to embark an additional 50 troops.

The RCN's own AOPS is undertaking long range cruises with a crew of 65.

I can appreciate the difference in number and complexity of the combat systems --- to a point. I am familiar with pairs of operators managing systems with hundreds of I/O for 8 to 10 hour shifts.


And I could go more extreme yet and refer to civilian transport ships of all classes with crews of a couple of dozen or less.

I concede that a big difference is that the civvy crew is not tasked with saving the ship.

Is it worth the extra dollars and crew to harden naval ships?

Patrol ships are not designed to take damage from missiles and continue the fight, like an actual combatant such as a frigate or destroyer. Patrol ships are designed to maintain presence cheaply, and be able to fight off smugglers/pirates at most.

A CPF can sail from point A to point B with very few people, but it couldn't do anything apart from sail there. If civilian container ships had to do things other than sail from A to B, they would have far more crew embarked. Warships that can't do anything buy sail around are pretty useless.

Warfighting is complex business, and one person can only focus on so much at a time. If you cut the Ops team back too much you'll find that your warfare directors are overwhelmed, and nothing is happening the way it should be. If you cut too many maintainers you don't have the systems working when you need them. If you cut too many support pers your operators and maintainers have to spend more time cooking, cleaning, and other husbandry tasks, than they spend doing what you're actually paying them to do.

Try this thought experiment. Put your plant in the middle of nowhere, have your team live there for weeks at a time without the ability to leave or call in someone when things break, people get hurt, or the place catches fire, and I suspect you'd no longer have pairs of operators, you'd have a robust team capable of managing pretty much any situation that comes up... Just like a warship.

 

[Underway]

Automation is good. It allowed the reduction of risk from having ship's crews in engineering spaces. IPMS/IMCS let the Navy move from having a bunch of stokers on watch in the spaces, to having a bunch of stokers watching the spaces.

Looking at the civilian cruise and cargo ships, the engineering plants and such are highly reliable, and highly automated.

However.

Looking at the civilian cargo/tanker ships that have been recently hit in the Houthi strikes, one can observe that having a crew of 30-ish onboard a huge ship results in NOT having enough personnel onboard to control a fire.

A warship that has a crew of 50 is certainly do-able, but let us look at what that means (looking at a reduced crew size):

From the crew of 50:
CO
XO
Cox'n
PA/Medic
Engineering Officer
Chief Eng
Combat Officer
Cook

Take those folks right off the top and you're left with 42 people left to stand watches. That's 21 people, able to be augmented at Action Stations by 21 more.

That isn't a lot.

The Engineering Department would probably be 5 on watch (3 on consoles, 2 roundsmen) the OPS team would probably be 10, and the bridge would probably be 6, which gives you your 21.

Action Stations - surge another 5-6 into OPS and the Bridge and you're left with a single Section Base of about 15 people.

Anything more than a single fire/flood and you're tapped out unless someone is nearby to help you out.

There's a simple answer. You dont do damage control. You do what the merchant marine does and GTFO. As was stated, disposable ships.

 

[KevinB]

There's a simple answer. You dont do damage control. You do what the merchant marine does and GTFO. As was stated, disposable ships.

So basically you don’t need a Navy with expensive ships?

 

[YZT580]

So basically you don’t need a Navy with expensive ships?

if I can bud in, an expensive, automated ship with a reduced crew is only good until the first shell penetrates below the waterline. Would HMS
Antrim, Glasgow or Argonaut have survived in the Falklands without adequate crew to continue fighting the ship and put out the fires? all the automation in the world can't put a patch over a shell hole. My 2 cents