Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

Now you are cutting capabilities and changing the ships characteristics can cause all sorts of unintended consequences. Its not a good idea if your ship can't trim correctly. It may seem easy to you but I'm pretty you are not a Nav Arc. Best you stay in your own lanes.

Germany navy frigate enters chat.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And any ship with a container on it can also have its own robust point defence system

View attachment 83185

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

Skyknight (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But is it marinized? Land systems introduced to the sea environment generally don't fare well.

 

[Kirkhill]

But is it marinized? Land systems introduced to the sea environment generally don't fare well.

Are those shipments of sneakers in seacans marinized?

Even if that were an issue it would be a lesser cost to resolve.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't know what they are classified as, yet. However, with AEGIS radars and strike length VLS and the missile load being described as everything from ESSMs to Tomahawks and everything in between, they seem to fit both the size and general purpose description you would expect from a destroyer. The French Navy FREDA variant of their FREMM frigate is closer to what the CSC's will and can do. The French put a "D" in those FREDA's identifiers, meaning they regard them as destroyers.



If you do that with strike length VLS, you will be encroaching into valuable work/living/office/storage space below the current mission bay.



I like that idea, but to be useful it requires solving the old problem of sending enough information/orders/data to a submerged object. Also, launching from below the water requires launch systems that are a little more complicated than systems for surface launch. You could have such an unmanned sub come to the surface just to launch, then go back down. Either way, once you launch, you have revealed your position.

If it was only tactical length?

 

[Kirkhill]

If it was only tactical length?

And thus the advantage of the Payload Delivery System. It can be applied to open decks and doesn't encroach on any existing watertight volume.

32 cells requires 8 TEU-40s which will fit in the Mission Bay Area.

4 TEU-20s hold 240 HALCON Sea Knight Point Defence missiles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Are those shipments of sneakers in seacans marinized?

Even if that were an issue it would be a lesser cost to resolve.

I see stuff like this (marinized) as great way to help our AOR's contribute to the task force defensive bubble or to their escorts defences.

 

[KevinB]

Now you are cutting capabilities and changing the ships characteristics can cause all sorts of unintended consequences. Its not a good idea if your ship can't trim correctly. It may seem easy to you but I'm pretty you are not a Nav Arc. Best you stay in your own lanes.

So your statement seemed odd to me, so I actually went and asked a Nav Arc design engineer. Bottom line was apparently reducing the Center of Gravity is never a bad thing and generally weight is weight along as it sits in the same position / and closed cells would actually be easier to account for than the random aspects of equipment or personnel in the MMB.

It would not a simply cutting a capability, but your making a trade off to lose one aspect but enhance another. I’m not suggesting that be done for all of the CSC, but it does seem to potentially be a decent option for a small portion of them. Again if your intent is to fit into a NATO flotilla, you probably don’t need all the missiles, but if you are sending off 2-3 ships to do something RCN only, maybe having extra missiles available on one of those isn’t a bad idea.


@Kirkhill apparently firing missiles from the MMB’s isn’t a good idea, at least without some additional effort put into air exchangers, and flash mitigation. I asked about that and was told that open air options are the only significantly viable method of launch without a purpose built space (which goes back to my previous comment about deleting the MMB for some of those to make room for VLS cells).

 

[Furniture]

So your statement seemed odd to me, so I actually went and asked a Nav Arc design engineer. Bottom line was apparently reducing the Center of Gravity is never a bad thing and generally weight is weight along as it sits in the same position / and closed cells would actually be easier to account for than the random aspects of equipment or personnel in the MMB.

I suspect your expert was correct, but weight, vs. weight is only one side of things. If the new VLS cuts the ship in half along the living/working decks, it's a nonstarter. A few more missiles is always less useful than effective DC, and that's before adding the human element.

I think a missile heavy design isn't bad, but it's pretty far outside the RCN's needs at this stage.

 

[Maxman1]

Like I've mentioned before, if a missile-heavy design is needed, it would be best to join in on the Type 83 program and building a suitable number of those, rather than adding extra shit on the CSC and hope for the best.

 

[Stoker]

So your statement seemed odd to me, so I actually went and asked a Nav Arc design engineer. Bottom line was apparently reducing the Center of Gravity is never a bad thing and generally weight is weight along as it sits in the same position / and closed cells would actually be easier to account for than the random aspects of equipment or personnel in the MMB.

It would not a simply cutting a capability, but your making a trade off to lose one aspect but enhance another. I’m not suggesting that be done for all of the CSC, but it does seem to potentially be a decent option for a small portion of them. Again if your intent is to fit into a NATO flotilla, you probably don’t need all the missiles, but if you are sending off 2-3 ships to do something RCN only, maybe having extra missiles available on one of those isn’t a bad idea.


@Kirkhill apparently firing missiles from the MMB’s isn’t a good idea, at least without some additional effort put into air exchangers, and flash mitigation. I asked about that and was told that open air options are the only significantly viable method of launch without a purpose built space (which goes back to my previous comment about deleting the MMB for some of those to make room for VLS cells).

Yes I thought by your absence of comments you were googling or whatever. The point is that the mission bay is still a massive reduction of capability and its never a simple matter of taking this away and replacing it with something else and expect to have the same characteristics which all have to be calculated. I'm sure your nav arc friend had told you what happens if you reduce your center of gravity too much?

The CRCN has been very clear that they think the 24 cells are adequate for task groups and future flights will have a larger load from modifications to the design or missile carrying ships with the CSC which I think is more of a pie in the sky idea at this point. In any case if you want to add something you must be prepared to cut something.

 

[KevinB]

Yes I thought by your absence of comments you were googling or whatever. The point is that the mission bay is still a massive reduction of capability and its never a simple matter of taking this away and replacing it with something else and expect to have the same characteristics which all have to be calculated. I'm sure your nav arc friend had told you what happens if you reduce your center of gravity too much?

Actually he didn’t as he left it with the movement of of the cog by that much would simply slightly improve stability. Again it appears based on OS images/models that it would be about a .7m reduction when the cells are fully loaded. (I’m also not sure what occurs when the cells are empty).

Now I need to wait till Tuesday to ask why (tomorrow being President’s Day down here).

My entirely non existent naval knowledge would guess it may effect turning, as all the ships I’ve seen take a list when turning at speed.

The CRCN has been very clear that they think the 24 cells are adequate for task groups and future flights will have a larger load from modifications to the design or missile carrying ships with the CSC which I think is more of a pie in the sky idea at this point.

Which got me started on my quest to see how many more cells could be added if the RCN wanted to go that route.

In any case if you want to add something you must be prepared to cut something.

Agreed, but I’m still not sure that all 15 would need to have the MMB. My next quest will be trying to see if one can expand the hangar into the MMB area fit more helo’s - like a Hook as well as VTOL UAS.

I suspect your expert was correct, but weight, vs. weight is only one side of things. If the new VLS cuts the ship in half along the living/working decks, it's a nonstarter. A few more missiles is always less useful than effective DC, and that's before adding the human element.

With only access to the OS pictures and models, it appears that a Strike VLS cell introducing back at the MMB wouldn’t do that - but again that’s just from what I have been able to find on the net.

I think a missile heavy design isn't bad, but it's pretty far outside the RCN's needs at this stage.

24 cells to me is fairly light, but then again I’m just looking at the AB and a few other similar sized ships to compare it too.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Type-26-Model-centre-2.jpg

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TYpe-26-frigate-VLS-cells-7.jpg

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TYpe-26-frigate-VLS-cells-4.jpg

The CSC as it stands has to be one of the most capable platforms the RCN has ever seen. Will we get 15 or 16 or 12, who knows? But we are probably a long way from that and much can and should change over a 20 yr delivery schedule

 

[Stoker]

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Type-26-Model-centre-2.jpg

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TYpe-26-frigate-VLS-cells-7.jpg

https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TYpe-26-frigate-VLS-cells-4.jpg

The CSC as it stands has to be one of the most capable platforms the RCN has ever seen. Will we get 15 or 16 or 12, who knows? But we are probably a long way from that and much can and should change over a 20 yr delivery schedule

Yes I think that's what many people miss that the entire build is over 20 years which means new governments, new emerging threats that could change many things in regards to the project. 100% sure we're getting at least 3 and anything after that all bets are off.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nice Suffolkowner, but those are pictures of the Australian version, with a view of the proposal to turn them into AAW destroyers.

 

[suffolkowner]

Nice Suffolkowner, but those are pictures of the Australian version, with a view of the proposal to turn them into AAW destroyers.

yes but thats kinda what we were talking about still adding more VLS. Are there pictures of the CSC with the mission bay deleted and more mk41?

edit; where can we find as nice a rendering of the CSC?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

None that I am aware of. So far, the various models of the CSC's have tended to go towards the "lesser capable" first batch that Admiral Topshee has mentioned as required in order to get them on time. Unlike Australia and the UK, in Canada we haven't had any apparent "conversation" about improving or increasing the capability of future versions yet, or about what such improvement/increase might look like.

I am not opposed to the idea of having a multi-mission bay, but I wonder if it isn't there just so we can fight the last war, again. In the Gulf War, boarding parties to inspect suspect vessels was a big part of the job, but is it likely to be part of the next one? I don't think so. That reduces the usefulness of the MMB. I know it could house a second helicopter, but unlike the 280's where they were side by side in the hangar, with direct access to the flight deck for both, I don't know how useful a one behind the other configuration would be (need someone from MH world to comment here). Same goes for using it for UAVs. I can see the bay being used for the upcoming unmanned independent minesweeping/hunting systems, but even though with such systems the mothership is not entering the minefield, it is overkill to use a high end frigate as a mothership.

All this to say that, considering what we are seeing now as a development in naval warfare, where in coastal and near-coastal waters drones are becoming a big thing, perhaps the best use of that space is to convert to extra missiles for close air defense.

 

[Kirkhill]

I see stuff like this (marinized) as great way to help our AOR's contribute to the task force defensive bubble or to their escorts defences.

Other advantage of containerized weapons. Reload time. Especially if you can drive on to the deck from the dock.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not so sure, Kirkhill. Unlike products containers used for shipping where you just clip or unclip the holding dogs and tie downs, containerized weapons systems need electrical, mechanical and electronic connections that then need to be weatherized and tested. It may or may not be quicker than the siloed ones we use now, but it is not so clear as what you seem to indicate.

If after mounting onboard you find that three or four of the weapons wont work (even though they have been tested before loading in the container), do you need to unship the whole container because its loading/unloading of weapons can only be done ashore? With the siloed system, we only need replace the defective ones. Similarly, if you use a third of the missiles in a fight before coming back to harbour, do you have to unship the whole container and take on anew one? Here again with siloed systems, you just take on replacements for what was used.

Again here, I don't know the answer, but I am just saying it is unclear whether there is a time advantage overall.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill apparently firing missiles from the MMB’s isn’t a good idea, at least without some additional effort put into air exchangers, and flash mitigation. I asked about that and was told that open air options are the only significantly viable method of launch without a purpose built space (which goes back to my previous comment about deleting the MMB for some of those to make room for VLS cells).

Note the configuration of the Italian PPA.



Note the Stanflex Deck midships on the Huitfeldt and the Absalon.



That midships space is over the COG/COM. The Stanflex modules are above the water line but are low density / light.
The Mission Bay on the CSC is essentially an aluminum shed covering the Main Deck and housing an Overhead Traveling Crane.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not so sure, Kirkhill. Unlike products containers used for shipping where you just clip or unclip the holding dogs and tie downs, containerized weapons systems need electrical, mechanical and electronic connections that then need to be weatherized and tested. It may or may not be quicker than the siloed ones we use now, but it is not so clear as what you seem to indicate.

If after mounting onboard you find that three or four of the weapons wont work (even though they have been tested before loading in the container), do you need to unship the whole container because its loading/unloading of weapons can only be done ashore? With the siloed system, we only need replace the defective ones. Similarly, if you use a third of the missiles in a fight before coming back to harbour, do you have to unship the whole container and take on anew one? Here again with siloed systems, you just take on replacements for what was used.

Again here, I don't know the answer, but I am just saying it is unclear whether there is a time advantage overall.

Point taken but is it insurmountable?

As I understand it the AOPS has attachments on both the cargo deck and the flight deck, with power, for sea cans. The Dane's Stanflex systems have standardized power and water fittings. The US has successfully launched weapons from TEUs secured to the deck of an OSV and the flight deck of an LCS.

As to the risk of some weapons in the container being NS, if they don't interfere with the firing of the adjacent weapons the aren't we looking at the comparative risk of 1 in 100 failures vs the benefit of rapidly loading 60 ready to launch SAMs in a TEU-20? Or adding 4 VLS cells in a TEU-40?