Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1

**Staff edit**
The link works, after adding a space. :facepalm:

Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design. 

 

[Swampbuggy]

Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1

**Staff edit**
The link works, after adding a space. :facepalm:

Thanks for the repair...and the face palm!! 

 

[Swampbuggy]

Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design.

Interesting. I hadn’t heard that about the HERO class. Would you say they rolled worse than an MCDV? I know the SENTINEL is longer and heavier than the HERO. I take it you don’t feel it’s enough to make a difference in sea keeping. But, would that really be the end of the world in a short term patrol vessel/quick response craft? I don’t propose to use these like MCDV’s to send to Africa or even on CARIBBOPS, but keep closer to our coasts. At any rate, it’s probably a moot point. I don’t think a small patrol vessel or corvette is going to happen any time soon.

 

[YZT580]

Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.

Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow. 

 

[Swampbuggy]

Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.

Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow.

So, in that case, what best determines the ability to handle the big water? Is it that anything below the size of, say, an ANZAC class frigate is undesirable as a secondary OPV? Or can you have a vessel under 1000 tonnes and under 200 ft long with stable sea keeping in the North Atlantic? How does the MCDV handle it, given it’s size and somewhat blunt Hull design? Reading up on the SENTINEL, it was designed to be able to operate in Sea State 4 and survive in State 5. It does have anti roll fins, as well. I’m not sure if the HERO does.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.

Yes, I think that was one of the issues that sank the EDMUND FITZGERALD.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This smaller vessel is no slouch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschweig-class_corvette

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This smaller vessel is no slouch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschweig-class_corvette

Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

 

[Half Full]

Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.

I can second SeaKing Tacco's assessment of the Victoria class's capabilities!

 

[NavyShooter]

I'm a W Eng Tech - SONAR background.

Despite my techie background, I understand the operations side well enough.  On MON a few years ago, off Norfolk, we did a test with one of the subs.  I won't say the distance, but I will state that I watched it effectively disappear when they brought down their DG and secured to silent running. 

It was...a hole in the ocean.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nice to hear you couldn't hear them, better yet knowing our ASW types are no slouches either

 

[Swampbuggy]

Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

I’ve always liked the BRAUNSCHWEIG, though I’ve heard the German’s are having second thoughts about it’s place in the fleet. It’s a bit bigger than what I had in mind. Maybe something along the lines of a USN CYCLONE class would be a good compromise.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.

 

[AlexanderM]

Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

Looks good, has some teeth.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Just "go" for "Hollands",big enough,comfy,great radar,no teeth(but you can see everything that's commin towards you),lmao(just kidding)

 

[Swampbuggy]

Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.

It is certainly a much lighter vessel than the MCDV, and because it’s not built like a minesweeper, it’s hull form is more optimised for speed. Something along this line could be built anywhere, without having to worry about the 1000 tonne prohibition included in the NSS.  It’s a complimentary vessel in that it would fill roles unsuitable or too expensive to dedicate a frigate or AOPS to. 6-7 of these, with 6 AOPS and 6 refit MCDVS would make a good mix for the lower end of the fleet.

 

[Cloud Cover]

the "updated Israeli version" is 1/3 paid for by Germany, which helps things (1) the Germans will ensure no cost overruns and (2) Israel gets the Audi of corvettes. Nice!!

 

[JMCanada]

I would like to point to the numbers and types of combatants foreseen in other, similar, navies.
I refer to UK, France, Italy and to some extent to Australia.

All of them are working as to have a fleet of about 12 (Aus) to 19 (UK) combatants, not just patrol boats, ready by about 2030s.

All the europeans will include in these numbers 3 types of frigates/destroyers: AAW (Type 45, Horizon both french or italian type & Hobart) , ASW (type 26, Fremm and Hunter class) which may be called as well multipurpose, and light/multipurpose frigates (type 31, FTI, PPA).

For logistics, commonality, training and manning reasons i may agree that only two types of combatants may be the best choice, like the aussies have done. But there should be at least 2 types.

Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.

Therefore I would like that either...
1) CSC are provided in two types, as originally depicted but now seems to have been forgotten, or

2) CSC (of only one type) should be limited to 9-12 units and by mid-production DoD should start the requirements and design process for a 2nd type of 4 to 6 updated combatants fitted for new roles.

IMHO.  :

 

[Uzlu]

Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.

The surface combatant will probably be a very flexible design so that future blocks will always be a modified and improved version of the previous block—similar in concept to the St. Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie, and Annapolis-class ships.  St. Laurent was laid down on 22 November 1950.  Annapolis was completed on 19 December 1964.  That is twenty ships built in a bit more than fourteen years. 

These four classes of ships had the same hull and propulsion machinery but different weapons and sensors.  The surface combatants will probably have the same or similar hulls and propulsion machinery but different weapons, sensors, computers, software, and other equipment.  In other words, what will be done is probably going to be similar to what has been done.