Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[GR66]

I don't know that I would want the AOPS going anywhere if there was a shooting war. I don't think they have any noise reduction measures incorporated into the ship's design and that becomes an open invitation for submarine, especially considering their extremely limited armament, that contains no AS weapons (though I suppose this would change during a war).

P.S. Nice of you to suggest a system built in Mirabel, Qc - even if it is highly modified by Northrop Grumman thereafter to turn it into a Fire Scout. I see what you did there.

I'm not suggesting that we send the AOPS into the South China Sea or anything of that nature. However, enemy subs may wish to park themselves near our (US and Canadian) major military and civilian ports in order to more easily locate our ships/subs before they have the chance to disperse. AOPS placing a picket line of UUVs within P-8 range of the coast could significantly increase our maritime domain awareness.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You are the one who first suggested using them in conjunction with convoys or on known submarines routes:

You could potentially use the AOPS as a mother ship for a series of these UUVs and create a picket line of sensors along the flanks of proposed convoy routes or along suspected infiltration routes for enemy submarines.

Even working near own harbours is dangerous: WW2 losses, out of 26 ships (I am not counting the MTB/MGB's), four lost in the Halifax approaches, four in the St-Lawrence River and Gulf and two in front of other Canadian harbours (St-John and Sidney). That's almost half of Canadian warship losses of that war.

The Battle of the Atlantic, 1939-1945 - Canada.ca

Every year on the first Sunday in May, the Canadian Navy family gathers to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic – to honour the struggle, sacrifice, and loss, but also to celebrate the heroism and courage in the face of daunting obstacles.

www.canada.ca

There are no safe place to use AOPS in a war

 

[Navy_Pete]

Oh I thought it was the MMB on the HMS Glasgow as a representative picture of the CSC area.

You're right, my bad.

Either way it's huge; but makes sense as it can fit a second helo. Realistically that will be where the multirole boats and UAVs go.

 

[GR66]

You are the one who first suggested using them in conjunction with convoys or on known submarines routes:



Even working near own harbours is dangerous: WW2 losses, out of 26 ships (I am not counting the MTB/MGB's), four lost in the Halifax approaches, four in the St-Lawrence River and Gulf and two in front of other Canadian harbours (St-John and Sidney). That's almost half of Canadian warship losses of that war.

The Battle of the Atlantic, 1939-1945 - Canada.ca

Every year on the first Sunday in May, the Canadian Navy family gathers to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic – to honour the struggle, sacrifice, and loss, but also to celebrate the heroism and courage in the face of daunting obstacles.

www.canada.ca

There are no safe place to use AOPS in a war

So I guess we tie them up alongside for the duration of a major conflict?

In a real war between the West and China/Russia where you potentially see attacks on our merchant shipping and sea mines being laid in our territorial waters I'm willing to bet that lots of assets will end up getting used in ways they were initially not intended.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So I guess we tie them up alongside for the duration of a major conflict?

In a real war between the West and China/Russia where you potentially see attacks on our merchant shipping and sea mines being laid in our territorial waters I'm willing to bet that lots of assets will end up getting used in ways they were initially not intended.

If the convoy has to sail, they will use whatever they have.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If the convoy has to sail, they will use whatever they have.

Like corvettes with wooden deck guns in WW2.

But AOPs has almost no value in conflict. Its a constabulary vessel. What they are doing, when they actually work, is give our sailors sea days.

 

[KevinB]

Like corvettes with wooden deck guns in WW2.

But AOPs has almost no value in conflict. Its a constabulary vessel. What they are doing, when they actually work, is give our sailors sea days.

It could take a few ‘jack in the box’ munitions on its flight deck to be used by the combatants first before their own stores.

 

[DBNSG]

If the convoy has to sail, they will use whatever they have.

Like a Coast Guard Ice breaker trailing a cantass ?

 

[Stoker]

Like corvettes with wooden deck guns in WW2.

But AOPs has almost no value in conflict. Its a constabulary vessel. What they are doing, when they actually work, is give our sailors sea days.

I would think training our backlog of sailors that need to be trained some of which will be employed on other warfighting platforms would add value.

 

[Lumber]

There are few things I look at. First is modern networked sonobuoys. There are a few launch options which might work in the mission bay. Certainly bolt on processing or storage are possible.

The secondly and not quite proven tech yet but possibly more important... Anti Torpedo Torpedos. Processing, launch platform etc...

Third is like you stated UUV or USV. Launch and recovery along routes.

Fourth is UUV/USV modern decoys.

I think there are some other ideas in the hopper but that's what my Sat morning brain remembered.

As discussed above by Underway and I, it could also be a window into future ASW. An UUV with good AI programming that would travel near the surface and stream a tail, then pop up an antenna to report to its frigate when it "hears" something would give the frigate multiple tails from which to triangulate, making it possible for the helo to pin down and strike at the submarine that more faster and easily with a much lower consumption level for expendables like sonobuoys.

Yes there will also be missile attacks on Western forces but the USN has ships specifically designed to counter those attacks. If we feel that we need to up our AAW capability then as @Furniture says we should get a dedicated AAW warship (highly unlikely due to money/personnel constraints) or look at other ways of increasing our missile capacity - most likely through minimally/unmanned arsenal ships - rather than tinkering with the CSC design.

Sonobuoys launchers, anti-torpedo torpedos, UUVs, USVs, arsenal ships, SOPD, VESTA... etc... These are all GREAT ideas.

But you know what these all have in common? Most are unproven systems, but all of them are systems not currently part of CSC.

Mk41 VLS, and all the missiles associated with it (except SM-3 and SM-6), are part of the plan.

All your ideas sound like great CELEX upgrades, or maybe technology inserts for a later batch of CSC.

But we won't have that batch of CSCs online for the coming war; we'll be lucky if we have any online for the coming war.

The most realistic thing we can do is simply add more of what we already have lined up in the pipe; it's too late now, thanks to our abysmal procurement and ship building process, to insert totally new technologies.

So, build the fist batch with mission bays, because that's the only way we'll get them on time.

Build the next batch with additional VLS and NULKAs (or whatever the offboard decoy is going to be).

Heck, don't put the VLS along the sides like I recommended before, put them in the center, and put two more boats on each side.

 

[YZT580]

I would think training our backlog of sailors that need to be trained some of which will be employed on other warfighting platforms would add value.

and save wear and tear on the frigates at the same time

 

[Baz]

Sonobuoys launchers…

Somebody should implement the patent Expendable sonobuoy flight kit with aerodynamically assisted sonobuoy separation. Cheap, quick, minimal infrastructure.

Add to that a simple expendable UAV with a software defined radio that receives a block of sono channels and retransmits them on another block (so existing sono receivers can use it).

I tried to get people interested in a previous life but they thought it was out of their lanes.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Sonobuoys launchers, anti-torpedo torpedos, UUVs, USVs, arsenal ships, SOPD, VESTA... etc... These are all GREAT ideas.

But you know what these all have in common? Most are unproven systems, but all of them are systems not currently part of CSC.

Mk41 VLS, and all the missiles associated with it (except SM-3 and SM-6), are part of the plan.

All your ideas sound like great CELEX upgrades, or maybe technology inserts for a later batch of CSC.

But we won't have that batch of CSCs online for the coming war; we'll be lucky if we have any online for the coming war.

The most realistic thing we can do is simply add more of what we already have lined up in the pipe; it's too late now, thanks to our abysmal procurement and ship building process, to insert totally new technologies.

So, build the fist batch with mission bays, because that's the only way we'll get them on time.

Build the next batch with additional VLS and NULKAs (or whatever the offboard decoy is going to be).

Heck, don't put the VLS along the sides like I recommended before, put them in the center, and put two more boats on each side.

The mission bay can be seen as a way to hedge bets against these developments. Remember that we are not likely to see the first CSC enter service until the early 2030's, much of the technology that has been mentioned is either currently being proven or is planned to be trialed in the coming years. It comes off to me as short sighted to trade away our future capability with unmanned systems and general mission versatility for additional missiles. Unproven systems remain unproven until they are not, Canada will likely be stuck holding the bag when our allies and enemies are moving forward with next generation systems. CSC is set to potentially be one of the best vessels of its type to take advantage of these advances, I'd rather not squander that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would think training our backlog of sailors that need to be trained some of which will be employed on other warfighting platforms would add value.

The corvettes sometimes sailed with 1-2 trained seagoing personal, with the rest being their first deep water voyage. Come a real war, your going to have to toss a lot of things aside and train on the way over.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile in Holland

Netherlands to Spend Billions on Ships to Boost Defense Capacity

By Sarah Jacob and Diederik Baazil (Bloomberg) –The Netherlands has earmarked several billion euros to replace most of its large surface ships over the next 15 years, as the country seeks...

gcaptain.com

 

[Navy_Pete]

The corvettes sometimes sailed with 1-2 trained seagoing personal, with the rest being their first deep water voyage. Come a real war, your going to have to toss a lot of things aside and train on the way over.

The corvettes were pretty simple ships with simple equipment. That approach with how complex modern equipment is to operate and maintain will make you a complete liability. A single CPF in bad shape would easily wipe out a convoy of corvettes from over the horizon, and probably has enough anti ship missiles to take down a WW2 battleship on it's own, and a single modern sub would find it a cakewalk to get in range of a heavy weight torpedo and break it.

The comparison in combat effectiveness isn't even close, but does mean you can't just pull a fleet out of your ass and make do effectively with whatever you have anymore, so trained specialists crews are more critical than ever.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The corvettes were pretty simple ships with simple equipment. That approach with how complex modern equipment is to operate and maintain will make you a complete liability. A single CPF in bad shape would easily wipe out a convoy of corvettes from over the horizon, and probably has enough anti ship missiles to take down a WW2 battleship on it's own, and a single modern sub would find it a cakewalk to get in range of a heavy weight torpedo and break it.

The comparison in combat effectiveness isn't even close, but does mean you can't just pull a fleet out of your ass and make do effectively with whatever you have anymore, so trained specialists crews are more critical than ever.

I fully expected your response, however the likelihood is that if a modern day war breaks out and a convoy needs to sail, a good portion of your sailors will have little to no experience and you will still have to sail anyways. Anyone that is a Leading Seaman will quickly become a PO running herd on a bunch of green sailors. That might be a good dockside exercise to run, how would you train 75+ people in 5 days to work the ship? ( I get you can't let them use the combat systems and you just have to run that short staffed.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I fully expected your response, however the likelihood is that if a modern day war breaks out and a convoy needs to sail, a good portion of your sailors will have little to no experience and you will still have to sail anyways. Anyone that is a Leading Seaman will quickly become a PO running herd on a bunch of green sailors. That might be a good dockside exercise to run, how would you train 75+ people in 5 days to work the ship? ( I get you can't let them use the combat systems and you just have to run that short staffed.

Realistically you can't, and just need to sail as is with a bunch of capability gaps. For missing maintainers (and already degraded equipment) makes it difficult to even get across the pond without losing more equipment from normal faults, let alone sustaining it.

We could probably do a few ships with trained crews and equipment shortfalls, but untrained crews and equipment shortfalls turns them into meat shields.

Maybe could do more with a few months, but most ships have years of backlog on big repairs, so cumulatively we'd struggle to get them up to commercial standards, which has huge survivability gaps compared to a combatant. Would be a waste of potentially useful assets for short term check in the box that may not be at all effective in real terms.

I am expecting half the fleet to get parked in the short term with the budget cuts and crew shortages, and we don't actually have crews for AOPs 5 &6 or the JSSs currently, so really makes the equipment bit fairly irrelevant.

You can mitigate equipment issues with people, you can mitigate personnel shortages with equipment automation, but you can't do much when you have issues with both concurrently other than be realistic about what you actually can do. I think the gap between the fleet on paper and the real capability we could do is pretty huge, due to big issues at the 10k foot level and also down in the weeds.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your response are logical and correct. However I don't share your belief that things will be parked come a major conflict. My guess they will fire anyone who says "Can't" till they find someone that will say "Yes sir".

 

[NavyShooter]

It's hard to not leave things parked when you only have crews for half the ships...and firing more people won't help.

To build warships is something that takes a nation's treasure.

To build effective crews is something that takes a nation's best that want to serve.

Right now, we live in a 'post nation state' and have been told that our national identity is unimportant. That's a tough hill to climb over when looking for patriotic youth that want to learn to serve.