Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
YZT580 said:
Because the supply chain is based in Canada. The cost of redesign is pretty low (in the grand scheme) and will also save some weight/material costs to install (220 runs on larger gauge wire, breakers cost more etc). You don't need to change the cable runs or anything, you just change the breaker specs, some details on the domestic power generation (transformers etc) and off you go. If they were smart, they may have already done that as part of the design for export phase, but it's the kind of thing a junior EE could do.
If you don't do that, every single thing you plug into an outlet becomes special order (without a transformer/power inverter). So aside from the fitted ships equipment, like washer/dryers, fridges, tvs, that would include any electronic equipment the crew brings on. It would be an absolute nightmare for the supply chain, cost a fortune, and be a huge QOL issue for the crew. Also, you'd have a huge number of adapters plugged in which would be a safety issue and draw a whack of extra power.
Seems like a minor thing that shouldn't be complained about, but remember this is people's home. Imagine having to live on base, but having all the plugs in the shacks have weird plugs that don't let you plug any of your stuff into, and then live there for months at a time without being able to leave.
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 530
Sounds like one of my tours and something everyone posted outside of North America faces...Navy_Pete said:
Edit to add: Come to think of it, all I needed for my personal entertainment electronics was a plug adapter instead of a full blown power converter as the systems' power supplies were already designed to handle the difference.
- Reaction score
- 6,693
- Points
- 1,140
garb811 said:
So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance.
Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA.
It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
A plug adapter was fine for a laptop, sitting at a desk, but doesn't work for anything else with bigger draws or doesn't have it's own power supply.
NATO standard power is 450 V 60 Hz, so all you normally need to do for domestic power is step it down to 220/110V. There are a few ways to get 50 Hz for the domestic side, but it adds in extra steps with some extra gear, and KISS makes a huge difference over a long time frame for costs (like a 40 year time).
Like I said, they probably already had that figured out when they designed the Type 26, and is a pretty easy change that was probably part of the proposal requirements anyway.
NATO standard power is 450 V 60 Hz, so all you normally need to do for domestic power is step it down to 220/110V. There are a few ways to get 50 Hz for the domestic side, but it adds in extra steps with some extra gear, and KISS makes a huge difference over a long time frame for costs (like a 40 year time).
Like I said, they probably already had that figured out when they designed the Type 26, and is a pretty easy change that was probably part of the proposal requirements anyway.
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 530
You obviously haven't talked to anyone in one of the 3rd Bns, they tell themselves to leave the tents behind so don't need a sailor to do that for them.Furniture said:So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance.
Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA.
It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.
BAE claims that the Type 26 has a top speed of 26+ knots.Navy_Pete said:
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship
FrontLIne Defence appears to be suggesting something different for the Canadian variant.
https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5a/10488-TEAM-LOCKHEED
If the hull will not change, then power must be increased. Because where is this extra two knots coming from?
The RN, RAN & RCN versions of the Type 26 will all have different Radars, Sonars , Fire control, Combat Management System ,Weapons and hence have different power requirements. They also have different engines. The Brits have RR gas turbines and mtu diesels while the Aussies call for GE turbines and god knows what Canada will get. It is really confusing as several different source sites quote different speeds & tonnages for the type 26 . I guess we are just going to wait for the Canadian contract award to find out what exactly our contract specifies and how it compares to other national types.
Cheers
Cheers
Just curious. Where have you seen that the Aussie Type 26 will have GE GTs? I've only ever seen any of the variants (UK, AUS, and CAN) described as having RR MT30s. Other than commonality with existing ships (which is quite important, granted) I don't see why they would take the technical risk to integrate a different engine. The latest and greatest version of the LM2500 (the +G4) is still less powerful than the MT30, at 35MW, vice 36MW (48,000 HP) for the MT30 on the UK T26. There is also a 40MW (53,333 HP) version of the MT30. Perhaps this is what the AUS and CAN versions will come with, which might explain the speed discrepancies between the different variants (26 Kn for UK, 27 Kn for AUS Hunter Class, and 28+ for the CSC)
https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf
https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
calculus said:
Pleased correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t there a RR marine engine plant here in Canada? Peterborough, maybe? If so, wouldn’t it make sense just to stick with the MT30?
The answer is complex. But here are a few things to keep in mind. A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed. A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.Lumber said:
A high-powered engine tends to be relatively inefficient at low cruising power and thus affects endurance. After 1945, Western naval doctrine required escorts to be able to make relatively high speeds in very rough water. This means heavier hull construction and increased freeboard, which increased hull weight and thus requires more power. Sonar is less effective above about 20 or 25 knots.
In anti-submarine warfare, long-range weapons have decreased the value of fast tactical speeds. The emphasis is now on maintaining slower top speeds in rough seas rather than maintaining higher top speeds in very calm seas. So while modern frigates and destroyers appear slower than their counterparts before 1946, they are actually—in real-world usage—faster.
Hi all, This is my first post but I've been reading the forums for a long time.
It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?
Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada
It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?
Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada
Greene said:
For the RAN the combat system will be Aegis, with SAAB developing an interface layer between that and non-Aegis "native" sensors and weapons like the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radars. It probably leverages off work they did to integrate earlier versions of CEAFAR, MU-90 etc into the 9LV CMS.
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 580
Why wait until IndoDefence 2018 to release this, and not submit this for CSC?
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html
Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html
Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 180
probably these will replace the M-class frigate. 
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
Good2Golf said:
Not entirely new
Damen explained to us that the Omega / FFI frigate is based on the proven LCF / De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate hull form. The vessel features an hybrid propulsion system consisting of 4x diesel engines (two can be used for economic speed, four for sprint) plus 2x electric engines. The diesel engines are separated forward and aft for increased survivability. Power generation aboard the ship takes into account future weapon systems such as directed energy weapons.
