Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Gorgo]

Bow, Saskatchewan, Thompson, Nelson. There is country left of Ontario.

Watch: Ottawa is going to be repeated in this class!

 

[Maxman1]

Kootenay and Columbia will probably be reused.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not to mention that as technology advances, it often gets smaller, lighter and mor energy efficient.

In some cases; but for a lot of things the improvements are so incremental that it's still basically the same footprint. Energy efficiency is relative as well; computers are more energy efficient relatively but more complex stuff means much more raw computing power which increases actual power demands marginally, and tends to need more cooling as well.

I suspect future won't be more efficient, but would instead increase capability for the same/increased footprint until the margins are gone. That's essentially what happened with every other class.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would be careful to fall into doom and gloom "everything is made obsolete by drones" trap that many people are strangely obsessed with, given how it has not proven to be true.

Naval drones utilized by the Houthi's in the Red Sea and the Ukrainian's in the Black Sea have had absolutely horrid success rates, that is especially notable in the case of the Russians who have nowhere near the training and equipment to counter small boat threats. Naval drones are no different than dealing with massed small boat attacks, frigates like CSC are easily able to counter these threats through their main, secondary and even tertiary guns found aboard. There was recently a Houthi USV destroyed attacking a civilian tanker by armed guards firing FAL's off the bridge wings. Missiles are also effective in dealing with these systems as well, the Russians have begun using helicopters to slaughter the Ukrainian USV's to decent effect. Look no further than the countless USV's and aerial drones piled up by the task forces operating in the Red Sea.

Aerial drones are similar, easy to punch out of the sky with basically any system found aboard. There is plenty of developments that can deepen magazines aboard warships to better deal with swarming threats, that isn't even touching on the electronic warfare element which kills more drones in Ukraine than any other means. CSC is planned to be batch constructed, so it seems doubtful the RCN will sit back and let their vessels rot into irrelevance. Look at changes such as the removal of CAMM for RAM, they are adapting the design already to changing situational requirements. Warships are large floating mounting points with ample crew and power generation to run sophisticated jamming and spoofing, considering they already do in the case of ships like CSC with their current electronic warfare and decoy suites.

I don't see any trends that point towards surface vessels like CSC becoming irrelevant anything in the foreseeable future. People have been saying that the tank is obsolete or irrelevant since its inception but here it remains, a vital part of most land forces.

I will argue that the more dedicated ASW ships like the Halifax's are becoming more obsolete and multipurpose ships like the River Class which can do both ASW and AD well is the answer to the multitude of potentiel threats, both traditional and new.

 

[Underway]

and if we get rid of the mission deck to add missile capacity?

That's a design choice for sure. But we would be losing flexibility and future proofing to go down that path.

What if in a few years DE weapons become extremely effective, then all those missiles launchers are suboptimal.

Mission bay helps with future proofing and other missions our ships always do without sacrificing for a single warfare set.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The two earliest River names used by Canada for its destroyers were Saguenay and Skeena. Pretty sure they'll resurface. As much as many Canadian rivers' names are "saint" something or something, I think it would bad form to use those in our current era of avoiding anything that may smack of religious favoritism, so limiting it to St Laurent is enough. There are still plenty of names available. I give you a quorum more than the two above:

Chaudiere, Gatineau, Kootenay, Margaree, Qu'appelle, Restigouche, Saskatchewan, Annapolis, Columbia, Hamilton, Niagara, Terra Nova, Yukon, Nipigon. That's 14 more without using another saint or recycling Ottawa yet again. And all of them have been in use in the RCN for vessels named after rivers.

 

[Lumber]

That's a design choice for sure. But we would be losing flexibility and future proofing to go down that path.

What if in a few years DE weapons become extremely effective, then all those missiles launchers are suboptimal.

Mission bay helps with future proofing and other missions our ships always do without sacrificing for a single warfare set.

The more I read about DE weapons, the less I'm convinced that they will truly ever replace kinetic munitions (look up 'blooming').

I've been saying for years, drones are just bad missiles most of the time.

I've never heard you say this, but it is a good saying.

Eventually I'm going to rebuttal your longer post about dynamic shifts in the nature of sea warfare, but for now I'll just clarify on my early comment that I don't just think it's drones as weapons that will change the naval warfare paradigm, but drones as ISR platforms, drones as payload carriers, drones as offboard ECM and ECCM, drones as AEW a/c, etc.

 

[YZT580]

The more I read about DE weapons, the less I'm convinced that they will truly ever replace kinetic munitions (look up 'blooming').

I've never heard you say this, but it is a good saying.

Eventually I'm going to rebuttal your longer post about dynamic shifts in the nature of sea warfare, but for now I'll just clarify on my early comment that I don't just think it's drones as weapons that will change the naval warfare paradigm, but drones as ISR platforms, drones as payload carriers, drones as offboard ECM and ECCM, drones as AEW a/c, etc.

Drones are working today only because we failed to develop the antidotes at the same time we developed the vehicle. As aviation has found out, by controlling the frequencies you can mitigate much of the benefits of drones except and unless those drones are operating on a canned INS course. A fleet of SkyRaiders would make short work of most of the airborne style and I suspect that the marine versions can be dealt with with reasonably inexpensive weapons provided you are prepared for them. In other words, older weapon systems with new applications. Automation is not a total solution.

 

[GR66]

There was a recent podcast on the Modern War Institute "Defending Against Drones" that discussed a recent deployment of 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain Division to Iraq and Syria with the Brigade Commander. During their deployment they were targeted by over 100 one-way attack drones, which is more than faced to date by any other US unit.

Apparently they had the opportunity to trial and employ a wide range of AD and C-UAS kinetic weapons, radars and EW systems - both in service systems, SF systems and developmental systems at the al-Assad airbase. They ended up taking down 93 of 115 one-way attack drones that were fired at them.

There were several interesting comments in the podcast:

• Work needs to be done on linking together the various sensors and shooters.
• A mix of systems is required...systems that are good in one location/situation might not be good in others.
• More AI/automation is required...to assist human operators in making the engagement decision...then executing the engagement once the human decision is made.
• The DE-SHORAD systems trialed were not as effective as hoped.
• There apparently was only one successful EW take-down of a UAV
• The Raytheon Coyote missile was the most effective system they used followed by the LPWS C-RAM (i.e. Phalanx) then an (unnamed UK system).

I think it's probably quite clear that counter-UAV warfare in a naval setting is quite different than in a land setting. In particular I think the power available to EW systems on a ship will make them much more effective than less powerful land-based systems.

All the attacks on the Americans were with Group 2 and 3 UAVs (i.e. no small quad-copter type FPV drones) so land-based EW systems are probably more effective against that type of UAV (like we're seeing used in the thousands in Ukraine). It's also important to note that these attacks were all basically pre-programmed drones striking fixed facilities. These types of drones will be much less effective against mobile targets.

Overall I agree with the idea that the most important effect of unmanned systems will be the ISR capabilities that they provide. Once you arm them and use them as a weapon they are really no different than the aircraft, vehicles and small ships we have to face now...they just might be a bit smaller and more numerous.

 

[dapaterson]

Chaudiere, Gatineau, Kootenay, Margaree, Qu'appelle, Restigouche, Saskatchewan, Annapolis, Columbia, Hamilton, Niagara, Terra Nova, Yukon, Nipigon. That's 14 more without using another saint or recycling Ottawa yet again. And all of them have been in use in the RCN for vessels named after rivers.

Montreal River is right by Sault Ste Marie

 

[Czech_pivo]

Montreal River is right by Sault Ste Marie

I'd like to see HMCS Detroit personally.

 

[Underway]

The more I read about DE weapons, the less I'm convinced that they will truly ever replace kinetic munitions (look up 'blooming').

Just using that as a random example to make a point. So many missions we do require the space of a mission bay.

I've never heard you say this, but it is a good saying.

It's been a long time since we were on the same coast! Lol

Eventually I'm going to rebuttal your longer post about dynamic shifts in the nature of sea warfare, but for now I'll just clarify on my early comment that I don't just think it's drones as weapons that will change the naval warfare paradigm, but drones as ISR platforms, drones as payload carriers, drones as offboard ECM and ECCM, drones as AEW a/c, etc.

I agree whole heartedly with this.

Both the rebutal but also the nature of drones. I think ISR is probably where they will really shine.

Another vote for the mission bay. Store a pile of drones on that space as it connects through the hangar to the flight deck and vice versa to the boat bays. If a helo isn't required you can use hangar space for more payload.

 

[tomydoom]

I'd like to see HMCS Detroit personally.

It would also have fitted with Harper's 1812 fetish.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I personally don't see the RCN going for any new names, I expect them to reuse the old River class destroyer names from previous classes.

 

[Underway]

Well you can select from the Destroyer Escorts that were all named after rivers.

 

[Lumber]

I personally don't see the RCN going for any new names, I expect them to reuse the old River class destroyer names from previous classes.

Y'all need to stop snubbing Steeltown and give the Hammer a damn ship!

 

[Czech_pivo]

Y'all need to stop snubbing Steeltown and give the Hammer a damn ship!

HMCS Chedoke Creek..... not sure if the people of Hamilton will be happy with that selection

 

[Maxman1]

How about HMCS French.

 

[Lumber]

HMCS Chedoke Creek..... not sure if the people of Hamilton will be happy with that selection

Most would probably ask "why are you naming it after a golf course?".

 

[suffolkowner]

Royal Navy frigate strength to get worse before it gets better | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

good graphic in the article on potential or expected gap in available frigates, not sure how to post it separately

interestingly there is a stated expectation that they can get the construction time down to 5 yrs by ship 8