• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

MilEME09 said:
If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow the concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)

Yes, IF true.  I don't trust the displacement numbers from the Hunter Class or CSC that have been released publicly.  They are ballpark figures.  There is no way that at this part of the project process they have an accurate number.  I'm sure the mast design isn't even finalized.  And those radars, with their cooling and the associated EW suites, are heavy.
 
Of course we could ask for 12 of these to be built in Canadian yards and by time we finish killing that program, the current CSC will look like small potatoes.  8)

 

Attachments

  • Modern crusier.jpg
    Modern crusier.jpg
    70.1 KB · Views: 264
Colin P said:
Of course we could ask for 12 of these to be built in Canadian yards and by time we finish killing that program, the current CSC will look like small potatoes.  8)

Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)
 
MilEME09 said:
Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)

Well you see Irving will offer to build these at the same cost as your suggestion, so we pay for your idea and get a watered down version of mine and two for the CCG.  ;D
 
MilEME09 said:
Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)


Tried that ladies & gents, i.e. Zumwalt class

Turns out, they are just a wee bit expensive.  Too expensive for the USN even, which is saying something  ;)
 
Underway said:
Yes, IF true.  I don't trust the displacement numbers from the Hunter Class or CSC that have been released publicly.  They are ballpark figures.  There is no way that at this part of the project process they have an accurate number.  I'm sure the mast design isn't even finalized.  And those radars, with their cooling and the associated EW suites, are heavy.
Hunter class numbers are all over the map. This link suggests a full-load displacment of 9700 tonnes: https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/naval-channel/7055-royal-australian-navy-hunter-class-frigate.html

If that is actually true, it suggests a ton (pun intended) of growth margin  in the T26 design.
 
How different will the surface combatants be compared to the versions for the United Kingdom and Australia?
Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board

The navy's $35 billion fleet of new frigates is undergoing design changes because they have become too heavy, risking a cost blowout for taxpayers and potentially compromising their performance.

The Defence Department confirmed BAE System's Hunter class frigate has become longer, while its weight has increased.

BAE Systems conceded the frigate may have to swell in size but insisted it would still meet the navy's requirements.

The Australian Financial Review understands senior naval officers are beginning to have misgivings, although the relationship is nowhere near as strained as it is with the French submarine designer Naval Group.

The government selected BAE Systems in June 2018 to build nine frigates in Adelaide ahead of Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri.

Both European shipbuilders had put forward designs based on ships already in service with their respective navies, but BAE's Type 26 was a new design and at that stage only had one ship under construction for the Royal Navy.

The initial design, as pitched to the government, gave the frigate a weight of 8800 tonnes when fully loaded and length of 149.9 metres.

The winning bid deviated from the base UK design because it was required to include the Australian developed CEA phased array radar, the American Aegis combat system and an Australian developed combat tactical interface by SAAB.

Construction of the first ship is due to start in December 2022.

Defence industry sources said incorporating the radar, which is regarded as world leading, was proving problematic because of its weight and power consumption.

Unlike conventional radars, the data processing by the CEAFAR radar is done within the mast, making it very top-heavy. It also uses more power than standard radars.

One industry source said the frigate's weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.

A larger vessel has several flow-on costs, including construction, needing extra fuel for sailing and the provision of wharf infrastructure.

Alternatively, the navy might need to accept lower capability to keep the boat close to the original design parameters.

"Australia purchased a design concept and the design is changing significantly, and that is going to increase risk to the program," the source said.

A second source said the onus was on BAE Systems to "fix it up, because they put up a paper ship saying it could meet all the requirements, while their competitors had proven, in-service designs".

A third defence industry source likened the frigate to the car designed by cartoon character Homer Simpson, who wanted a raft of features to create the perfect car, only to create anything but.

In the frigate's case, the navy has demanded top-shelf military kit such as the radar and combat systems in a brand new design, but no builder has put the combination together before in the same vessel.

The Defence Department confirmed changes were being made.

"The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length," it said.

"The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."

Craig Lockhart, managing director of BAE subsidiary, ASC Shipbuilding, which will construct the frigates, said the Australian version was much more complex than its British parent and the topside was different.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/sinking-feeling-frigate-heads-back-to-drawing-board-20200625-p55639
 
Spencer100 said:
10,000 ton Frigate?
How about 9 000 tonnes?  Since the end of World War II, frigate displacements have continuously increased—more space required for weapons, sensors, computers, electronics, etc.  Countries are realizing that, since building and operating frigates is expensive and they can afford only a limited number of frigates, might as well go high end and get something very suitable for global deployments.
 
Few things I picked out from that article.  The Glasgow ship (UK Type 26) is bigger and heavier than originally advertised.  CEAFAR processing is done in the mast (which is no that weird given that processing should be as close to the emitter as possible).  And the best one, that the Australians are just as screwed up as we are!  Yay! Misery loves company.

Spencer100 said:
10,000 ton Frigate?  OK

Everyone please stop using tons to classify ships!  Ships are classified on role.  (see carrier, AOR etc...).  And modern multipurpose blue water ships are frigates.
 
Underway said:
And the best one, that the Australians are just as screwed up as we are!  Yay! Misery loves company.

They sure are.  That's why I shake my head whenever people say "we should just model our military/procurement after the ADF".  Their procurement process is slightly better in that they just throw money at the problem. 

If you really want to read up on a procurement blowout, check out their upcoming Attack-class submarines to replace the Collins-class.  It's a French SSN design that they want to make as an SSK, with American (and other) systems inside.  Australia will be the launch customer and the 12 subs are to be delivered over almost 25 years, so the last boats will be different than the first ones. 

If the program doesn't go completely pear-shaped, I'll eat my hat.
 
Underway said:
Everyone please stop using tons to classify ships!  Ships are classified on role.  (see carrier, AOR etc...).  And modern multipurpose blue water ships are frigates.

Actually, the term "destroyer" is sort of falling out of favour, save perhaps in the anglosphere. Most nations in the world only use the term "frigate", then specify the role: ASW frigate, Air Defence frigate, General Purpose frigate, and so on.

Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Actually, the term "destroyer" is sort of falling out of favour, save perhaps in the anglosphere. Most nations in the world only use the term "frigate", then specify the role: ASW frigate, Air Defence frigate, General Purpose frigate, and so on.

Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D

Destroyer is still popular in Asia as well.  Using the term frigate with the specificity of ASW/AD etc... supports my point.  Ships are classified based on role.  Not tonnage.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D

Taiwan and North Korea come to mind, but they also call them fast attack craft now. Taiwan actually has a new class coming soon with 4 x anti ship missiles.

 
Uzlu said:
How different will the surface combatants be compared to the versions for the United Kingdom and Australia?
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/sinking-feeling-frigate-heads-back-to-drawing-board-20200625-p55639
Australian shipbuilder pushes back against reports of frigate design concerns

MELBOURNE, Australia — The builder of the Royal Australian Navy’s new Hunter-class frigates has told Defense News that the ship’s design remains “within agreed weight and space envelopes,” despite a recent report in Australian media claiming recent changes have caused concern.

ASC Shipbuilding was responding to a June 26 story in the Australian Financial Review that said growth in the ship design’s weight and length is “sparking concerns.”

But ASC Shipbuilding Managing Director Craig Lockhart said Thursday the company remained confident in its ability to meet Australia’s capability requirements and specifications.

“ASC Shipbuilding is going through the normal naval design process for the Hunter-class frigate and is working collaboratively with the [Australian Defence Department’s] Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and the Royal Australian Navy to design a ship that meets Australia’s capability and performance requirements,” Lockhart said.

Australia is building nine Hunter-class frigates under the AU$35 billion (U.S. $24 billion) Project Sea 5000. The ship is based on BAE Systems’ Global Combat Ship, which is under construction in the U.K. for the Royal Navy as the Type 26 and will also be built in Canada as the Canadian Surface Combatant. However, the Australian government has mandated the incorporation of a CEA Technologies electronically scanned radar, which is designed and manufactured in Australia. It has also required the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system and an Australian interface designed by Saab Australia.

Australia’s specifications have impacted the size and weight of the Australian vessel’s radar mast as well as its power and cooling requirements, but Lockhart maintains the ship is not undergoing a redesign. Rather it is in the midst of what he calls a “normal naval design process,” and he sees nothing to date which will challenge the design margins.

“This design work involves understanding the impact of the Australian-specific systems and equipment and incorporating the agreed design activities, which have occurred as the first-of-class Type 26 Global Combat Ship design matures,” Lockhart said.

“Contrary to the suggestion made in the article, Hunter is not being redesigned, but instead our team is right in the middle of a normal naval ship design process for Hunter,” he added. “Importantly, the design activities being undertaken remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes for Hunter, and we remain confident in our ability to meet the capability requirements and specifications for the commonwealth on time and on budget.”

Prototyping construction work is expected to begin at ASC’s new purpose-built shipyard in Osborne, South Australia, in December, ahead of cutting steel for the first ship in December 2022. This first vessel is planned to become operational with the Royal Australian Navy around the end of the decade.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/02/australian-shipbuilder-pushes-back-against-reports-of-frigate-design-concerns/
 
Back
Top