Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Fabius]

Continuous build is a feature of the plan, a key feature. However the strategic threat environment in 2010 was much different than now.
As has been outlined elsewhere, it’s basically a given now that we will have a shrinking fleet from roughly now until the early 2040s. There is strategic risk in not accelerating our build capacity for both the River class and its successor.

Mitigating the threat to the continuous build plan is likely easier to achieve than mitigating a shrinking fleet as the international security environment becomes increasingly unstable.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm not sure how right that claim is, regarding the River class having its radar located higher up in the vessel than their Australian and British counterparts.

This isn't a perfect comparison image wise but I thought it was relevant, so I grabbed each of the designs in reasonably modern renders and placed them alongside each other. Type 26 (bottom) has its Type 997 Artisan radar system mounted at the highest point of the mast, this is possible due to the lightweight nature but lacklustre performance of the system. River (middle) has its SPY-7 arrays mounted above the main superstructure but nowhere near as high as the Type 26. Hunter has three array types, L-band (largest and lowest), S-Band (smaller and highest on the mast) and X-Band (smallest, placed between the L-Band panels).

Type 26 has the highest array by height, while River is generally tied with Hunter on height with regards to their highest arrays, although Hunter's highest arrays at S-Band.

I saw this image of USS Pinckney ( flight IIA/Mod [partial complete mod 2.0]) and thought of this thread and the discussion of profile and weight. It seems the USN tries to keep weight running along the main deck with some love handles above the waist. They could be deep ballasting as well to compensate for roll.

I’m assuming this is not affecting maneuvering at speed or rough seas.

Note also the SEWIP Block 3 EW sensors fixed to the superstructure near the AN/SPY-1D. The angle of this image appears to make the EW mast larger than it is, but the front profile change is very pronounced.

 

[NavyShooter]

Muffintop....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Apparently they need all the new room for chillers, racks, power nodes etc. in preparation for SPY-6.

The cost is about 1billion USD per ship just to modify to 2.0 standard package.

I sure hope the River class has room to grow for whatever comes in their 20 year modernization package.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely more room than the Hunters Class will have

 

[Navy_Pete]

Apparently they need all the new room for chillers, racks, power nodes etc. in preparation for SPY-6.

The cost is about 1billion USD per ship just to modify to 2.0 standard package.

I sure hope the River class has room to grow for whatever comes in their 20 year modernization package.

If by room to grow you mean being delivered with minimal margins from all the things we've jammed into it, then yes, it has 'room to grow'.

We should probably start it out with painting restrictions to limit weight growth, instead of waiting for 30 years like we did with the 280s.

 

[Lumber]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I feel like the timeline for the build of CSC is too long for the class to remain relevant. I feel like drone warfare will make it to the maritime domain and we're going to see a fundamental shift in the nature of surface and air warfare in the near future. In essence, CSC will be come obsolete before they even finish building them all by 2050.

Instead, Canada should look to something like the Royal Navy’s “Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS)”, an interesting concept that emphasizes the development of modular and interchangeable units that can be attached to its existing surface fleet.

And those PODS could be a lot of things, including Modified Shipping Container Designed to Launch Swarm of Kamikaze Drones.

So they could carry pods, of drones. They'd be pod layers...

I'll see myself out now.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Don't see yourself out. Remember instead that the River's are still purchased in batches and the final ones will likely bear little resemblance to the first three, at least in electronics and weapons systems.

 

[MTShaw]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I feel like the timeline for the build of CSC is too long for the class to remain relevant. I feel like drone warfare will make it to the maritime domain and we're going to see a fundamental shift in the nature of surface and air warfare in the near future. In essence, CSC will be come obsolete before they even finish building them all by 2050.

Instead, Canada should look to something like the Royal Navy’s “Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS)”, an interesting concept that emphasizes the development of modular and interchangeable units that can be attached to its existing surface fleet.

And those PODS could be a lot of things, including Modified Shipping Container Designed to Launch Swarm of Kamikaze Drones.

So they could carry pods, of drones. They'd be pod layers...

I'll see myself out now.

StanFlex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stanflex has entered the room.

 

[Underway]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I feel like the timeline for the build of CSC is too long for the class to remain relevant. I feel like drone warfare will make it to the maritime domain and we're going to see a fundamental shift in the nature of surface and air warfare in the near future. In essence, CSC will be come obsolete before they even finish building them all by 2050.

Instead, Canada should look to something like the Royal Navy’s “Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS)”, an interesting concept that emphasizes the development of modular and interchangeable units that can be attached to its existing surface fleet.

And those PODS could be a lot of things, including Modified Shipping Container Designed to Launch Swarm of Kamikaze Drones.

So they could carry pods, of drones. They'd be pod layers...

I'll see myself out now.

This is why the mission deck is so important. Gives inherent flexibility to the ship that other designs won't have. I expect batch II (ships 4-7) will look different to ships 1-3.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I feel like the timeline for the build of CSC is too long for the class to remain relevant. I feel like drone warfare will make it to the maritime domain and we're going to see a fundamental shift in the nature of surface and air warfare in the near future. In essence, CSC will be come obsolete before they even finish building them all by 2050.

Instead, Canada should look to something like the Royal Navy’s “Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS)”, an interesting concept that emphasizes the development of modular and interchangeable units that can be attached to its existing surface fleet.

And those PODS could be a lot of things, including Modified Shipping Container Designed to Launch Swarm of Kamikaze Drones.

So they could carry pods, of drones. They'd be pod layers...

I'll see myself out now.

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.

 

[lenaitch]

If by room to grow you mean being delivered with minimal margins from all the things we've jammed into it, then yes, it has 'room to grow'.

We should probably start it out with painting restrictions to limit weight growth, instead of waiting for 30 years like we did with the 280s.

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

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

Translation: you will be able to cram three times as much gear on the same space. With it only weighing twice as much .

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

Translation: you will be able to cram three times as much gear on the same space. With it only weighing twice as much .

 

[Edward Campbell]

Don't see yourself out. Remember instead that the River's are still purchased in batches and the final ones will likely bear little resemblance to the first three, at least in electronics and weapons systems.

I'm thinking of the St Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie and Annapolis class ships.

 

[Gorgo]

So as a quick aside, what other River-class names will be brought back for the new destroyers? We got Mackenzie, Fraser and Saint-Laurent so far. Assiniboine's out as it will be used for the training facility near Shearwater. Will we see the international river names (Niagara, Saint Croix, Saint Clair and Saint Francis) be potentially recycled?

 

[MTShaw]

So as a quick aside, what other River-class names will be brought back for the new destroyers? We got Mackenzie, Fraser and Saint-Laurent so far. Assiniboine's out as it will be used for the training facility near Shearwater. Will we see the international river names (Niagara, Saint Croix, Saint Clair and Saint Francis) be potentially recycled?

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

 

[Underway]

There are plenty of river names that can be recycled. No need to panic.

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 was reading an article in Naval News that the Greeks rolled up to the Red Sea and were shooting down drones with a jury rigged land based EWS and IR 127mm shells. Splash 3 drones. There was even video of the jammer crashing one.

The head of the French army stated that drones are seeing their time in the sun right now but doesn't expect them to be decisive going forward. Just one more tool or threat.

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

 

[Cloud Cover]

Ships have multiple layers of kinetic and soft kill weapons, compartmentalization, damage control, redundant paths for comms and power, large crews, speed, maneuver, firefighting systems, and because they are at sea, flammable and explosive substances are stored in protected bunkers and compartments. They should be able to fight off and survive swarming attacks of light weight FPV drones and similar systems while maneuvering to outside of a kill box and then attack the sources of the drones.

Cruise missiles, torpedoes, glide bombs, sea mines and gunfire remain the main threats.

 

[suffolkowner]

This is why the mission deck is so important. Gives inherent flexibility to the ship that other designs won't have. I expect batch II (ships 4-7) will look different to ships 1-3.

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