Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

Most of the cost is in the combat systems, could they build the same hull and reduce the armaments?

 

[KevinB]

Most of the cost is in the combat systems, could they build the same hull and reduce the armaments?

To get a big target that can't defend itself?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Hunter class is already overweight, they can reduce it by lessening the number of VLS's, smaller gun, perhaps a less capable combat suite. You still benefit from the same propulsion systems, sort of building it closer to the UK version which is mostly ASW as opposed to a all singing and dancing ship they want.

 

[Swampbuggy]

The problem with having smaller vessels is you start to have real issues having the volume to carry a meaningful load of missiles; a really good sensor suite and in any kind of sea state you end up just surviving, vice being able to fight.

It is a really tricky balancing act trying to design a ship that is just the right size to be survivable, fightable, and affordable…

I read that way too fast and thought it said “survivable, fightable and adorable”. Maybe that’s one way to connect to the public??

 

[NavyShooter]

Adorable...?

 

[Spencer100]

The Hunter class is already overweight, they can reduce it by lessening the number of VLS's, smaller gun, perhaps a less capable combat suite. You still benefit from the same propulsion systems, sort of building it closer to the UK version which is mostly ASW as opposed to a all singing and dancing ship they want.

That's the core of the problem. Both RAN and RCN need the multi do everything ship. They are trying to get a Destroyer out of a Frigate. (current navy ship classes are broken). So the navy not being super dumb says we get one kick at the can every 40 years throw in as much as we can from wish list. So both RCN and RAN will get a ship with a world class sensor, combat system and weapons. But will have a jack of all trades and master of none feel. Plus the disadvantage of shallow magazine. This is a good plan looking back the last 30 years. These ship if in the water today would be second only to new AB's and the big Japanese and Korea AB types. They outclass the T-45, FREMS, and anything up to the 055 of the PLAN. But the world is not sitting still.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's the core of the problem. Both RAN and RCN need the multi do everything ship. They are trying to get a Destroyer out of a Frigate. (current navy ship classes are broken). So the navy not being super dumb says we get one kick at the can every 40 years throw in as much as we can from wish list. So both RCN and RAN will get a ship with a world class sensor, combat system and weapons. But will have a jack of all trades and master of none feel. Plus the disadvantage of shallow magazine. This is a good plan looking back the last 30 years. These ship if in the water today would be second only to new AB's and the big Japanese and Korea AB types. They outclass the T-45, FREMS, and anything up to the 055 of the PLAN. But the world is not sitting still.

We need to concentrate our efforts. Find a role in naval warfare and try to be the best at it. We're part of alliances we will never operate independently so we need to stop trying to do everything.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I premise this with the fact that any talk about Canadian fleet expansion is a bit of napkin writing fun until we actually have people to put on those ships.

Having said the above, I would rather the 80% solution, in a greater quantity and on time and budget than the 100%, in a smaller quantity and late and over budget.

Having also said that, if a modern war occurs and chews through our equipment we wont be building high tech to replace them. We will be be building something akin to the modern idea of the flower class, and lots of them, augmented with a smaller amount of larger more capable ships.

At the same time trying to import steel from the very country that we could be a war with.....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think the last ship to really do survivable, fightable, affordable well was probably the USN OHP class…

 

[Czech_pivo]

We need to concentrate our efforts. Find a role in naval warfare and try to be the best at it. We're part of alliances we will never operate independently so we need to stop trying to do everything.

You mean finding our niche?

 

[Spencer100]

At the same time trying to import steel from the very country that we could be a war with.....

Funny thing about this one.....I really don't mind buying sheet steel from China. Just have super good QC on the stuff. Tooling up any Canadian steel maker for a one time warship program is not good value. Its just steel the cheapest part of the build.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You mean finding our niche?

We got rid of the steward trade. Wouldn't that be ironic lol

 

[Spencer100]

We got rid of the steward trade. Wouldn't that be ironic lol

Don't worry they/them steward is in not in the CAF....That's the Turtle Island Climate Emergency Response Force's (TICERF) Flight Management trade's Major General Private of the First Impi of the Second Gaia Escadrille of the winged Sparrow Force serving the water box thingys.

PS not pictured is the Aotearoa Green Planet Force with their boxed lunch's of lab grown protein and tubes vegan paste.

 

[Rainbow1910]

We need to concentrate our efforts. Find a role in naval warfare and try to be the best at it. We're part of alliances we will never operate independently so we need to stop trying to do everything.

Canada cannot get away with concentrating efforts too much on any one type of vessel in the coming years, doing so will likely make us pay dearly eventually. We cannot concentrate overly on air defense measures as we do not have our own centerpiece vessels to protect, it makes little sense to go all in on being your allies air defense crutch when it would knee cap our own force in the general purpose/ASW role. We cannot overly concentrate on anti-submarine warfare these days as considering the proliferation of anti-shipping weapons even in non-state actors and advancements in foreign strike methods, we would be creating vulnerable platforms which would be a burden on both ourselves and our allies.

This is why CSC is taking on the "jack of all trades" (there was other reasons as well, simplicity in logistics, availability and cost in having a homogenous ship class) method of ship design. Spencer100 said it very well above, Canada only gets swings at setting up the fleet properly for the coming decades and we need to get the best ship possible from this. We took a premier ASW design (Type 26), added a far more potent sensor/control suite and geared the design towards being able to slot into allied deployments as a valuable "do it all" vessel, it permits our own fleet to be very capable on paper as well.

Some nations with specific geographic and political requirements can get away with heavy specialization but I don't think Canada is in that camp. It would seem like Canada and Australia (to a greater degree) are both squeezing as much as we can get out of the Type 26 design, for better or for worse. I don't think CSC is particularly unique in this aspect, any base design chosen by Canada likely would be dealing with similar issues.

 

[GR66]

We need to concentrate our efforts. Find a role in naval warfare and try to be the best at it. We're part of alliances we will never operate independently so we need to stop trying to do everything.

Well, since submarine-launched cruise missiles and submarine-laid mines are the only real naval threats to Canadian territory and any major Allied naval task force we accompany will also face submarine threats I'd vote for ASW (once again). Of course that should also mean more MPAs and helicopters/UAVs for the Fleet Air Arm RCAF as well!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Canada cannot get away with concentrating efforts too much on any one type of vessel in the coming years, doing so will likely make us pay dearly eventually. We cannot concentrate overly on air defense measures as we do not have our own centerpiece vessels to protect, it makes little sense to go all in on being your allies air defense crutch when it would knee cap our own force in the general purpose/ASW role. We cannot overly concentrate on anti-submarine warfare these days as considering the proliferation of anti-shipping weapons even in non-state actors and advancements in foreign strike methods, we would be creating vulnerable platforms which would be a burden on both ourselves and our allies.

This is why CSC is taking on the "jack of all trades" (there was other reasons as well, simplicity in logistics, availability and cost in having a homogenous ship class) method of ship design. Spencer100 said it very well above, Canada only gets swings at setting up the fleet properly for the coming decades and we need to get the best ship possible from this. We took a premier ASW design (Type 26), added a far more potent sensor/control suite and geared the design towards being able to slot into allied deployments as a valuable "do it all" vessel, it permits our own fleet to be very capable on paper as well.

Some nations with specific geographic and political requirements can get away with heavy specialization but I don't think Canada is in that camp. It would seem like Canada and Australia (to a greater degree) are both squeezing as much as we can get out of the Type 26 design, for better or for worse. I don't think CSC is particularly unique in this aspect, any base design chosen by Canada likely would be dealing with similar issues.

I whole heartedly disagree, and we have a precedence for it in the RCN. We were designed in the post WW2 era to be concentrated on ASW.

And I tend to think we are still ok with it. It's part of reason the USN used to like to have a CPF in their CTGs.

We are never going to be big enough to operate our own TGs in combat, we will always be part of a greater focused. Even in WW2 we were mostly ASW with a couple CVs and CLs for good measure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, since submarine-launched cruise missiles and submarine-laid mines are the only real naval threats to Canadian territory and any major Allied naval task force we accompany will also face submarine threats I'd vote for ASW (once again). Of course that should also mean more MPAs and helicopters/UAVs for the Fleet Air Arm RCAF as well!

Agreed. We should be making up good portions of the convoy escorts.

 

[DBNSG]

Agreed. We should be making up good portions of the convoy escorts.

I can see Canada not only doing the Convoy escort task but I imagine our American Friends will ask us to get their Marines
to where they have to go. After all we have done that in the Persian Gulf a couple of times under Task force 150 I believe.
Do the Yanks have enough AB's or planned Constellation class to get the Marines to Norway, or the Baltic now that its a NATO pond? If those tasks are asked of Canada then the CSC should, on paper, be up to the job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I can see Canada not only doing the Convoy escort task but I imagine our American Friends will ask us to get their Marines
to where they have to go. After all we have done that in the Persian Gulf a couple of times under Task force 150 I believe.
Do the Yanks have enough AB's or planned Constellation class to get the Marines to Norway, or the Baltic now that its a NATO pond? If those tasks are asked of Canada then the CSC should, on paper, be up to the job.

Can you provide reference for your claim that moved around USMC folks in the Persian Gulf ?

We have absolutely no capability to conduct amphib ops beyond some small boats and divers.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I whole heartedly disagree, and we have a precedence for it in the RCN. We were designed in the post WW2 era to be concentrated on ASW.

And I tend to think we are still ok with it. It's part of reason the USN used to like to have a CPF in their CTGs.

We are never going to be big enough to operate our own TGs in combat, we will always be part of a greater focused. Even in WW2 we were mostly ASW with a couple CVs and CLs for good measure.

Agreed. We should be making up good portions of the convoy escorts.

From what I understand, the RCN is still perfectly capable of ASW and does a fairly good job however, that doesn't really mean that we should specialize in it. I think Canada providing escort to convoys and friendly task forces is a key role for us, hence why I think we need a platform capable of more than just ASW. We are going to be dealing with a multitude of threats potentially across the world depending on where we get deployed, submarines are one part of the equation but defending from more advanced and massed anti-surface missiles is another thing to keep in mind. Launch platforms can be from the shore, from submarines, from aircraft and in the future, potentially from undersea and aerial drones. Leaning away from just ASW focus allows us to put highly capable sensor suites, combat management systems and missile defense systems aboard which allows our ships to provide a far more wide reaching and effective net of protection to ourselves and our allies. Something like a CPF with only 16 missiles will not cut it going forward, arguably its not even cutting it now in certain theatres. That is why I think overly concentrating is not wise, we need platforms capable of doing a variety of roles/duties.

Can you provide reference for your claim that moved around USMC folks in the Persian Gulf ?

We have absolutely no capability to conduct amphib ops beyond some small boats and divers.

I think they meant that we are providing escort to our allies like the USMC, not that we are physically moving them around ourselves. Something like CSC with its potent SPY-7 system and CAMM, ESSM Block II and SM-2 III-C equipped VLS arrays will be a very valuable edition to a task force to protect it from any threats.