Future Naval platforms, systems, & fleet composition

[Czech_pivo]

I know that we try to attend and work with our partners around the world in as many joint naval operations as possible - snippet below as an example of a current one in south-east asia - "from Nov. 21 to 30 in the waters around Japan, a bilateral naval exercise between the JMSDF and the U.S. Navy will take place, along with two multilateral exercises. The first multilateral drill will include the JMSDF, U.S. Navy, the Royal Australian Navy and the German Navy, while the second involves the JMSDF, U.S. Navy, RAN and the Royal Canadian Navy. A total of 20 JMSDF ships and 40 JMSDF aircraft, 10 U.S. Navy ships, two RAN ships, a single RCN ship and a single German Navy ship will take part in these drills."

U.S. and Japanese Ships Hold Anti-Submarine Warfare Drills in the South China Sea - USNI News

KUALA LUMPUR – Japanese and U.S. fleets met this week for a first-ever anti-submarine warfare exercise in the South China Sea, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force said today. Helicopter destroyer JS Kaga (DDH-184) and destroyer JS Murasame (DD101) with their embarked SH-60J helicopters, an...

news.usni.org

The question that I have is this, how often has the RCN hold these types of drills/operations where we have 3 or 4 of our Halifax's actually out at the sametime working jointly together? I seems that from all that I have recently read over the last maybe 5-8yrs is that we only ever have a single Halifax attending one of these exercises. I'm sure that it helps immensely with our integrating a single ship into someone's much larger task force but how does it help us and our crews in being to coordinate and work multiple Halifax's together. I mean, could we even be able to effectively run a 3 or 4 ship Halifax only task force when none of these ships will have ever all worked together at once? I fully realised that with only 12 ships that the chances of actually having 3 (let alone 4) Halifax's operational and at the same location would be a Christmas miracle but how can our ships actually work with each other when 3 or 4 of them are never available to actually do so. Also, please don't provide examples of when a Kingston or two have joined up with a Halifax because from a potential combat training perspective it has no bearing.

 

[KevinB]

ctually out at the sametime working jointly together? I seems that from all that I have recently read over the last maybe 5-8yrs is that we only ever have a single Halifax attending one of these exercises. I'm sure that it helps immensely with our integrating a single ship into someone's much larger task force but how does it help us and our crews in being to coordinate and work multiple Halifax's together. I mean, could we even be able to effectively run a 3 or 4 ship Halifax only task force when none of these ships will have ever all worked together at once? I fully realised that with only 12 ships that the chances of actually having 3 (let alone 4) Halifax's operational and at the same location would be a Christmas miracle but how can our ships actually work with each other when 3 or 4 of them are never available to actually do so. Also, please don't provide examples of when a Kingston or two have joined up with a Halifax because from a potential combat training perspective it has no bearing.

If you can work with a coalition - you can work with yourselves.
But the RCN has some significant gaps - so it needs to work with/in a coalition, so working solely inside a RCN TF is fairly irrelevant at this point.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Last year, participating in JOINT WARRIOR 2020, the RCN had HALIFAX, VDQ, TORONTO and ASTERIX at sea together. They played the opposing force to the RN QE strike force in the exercise, IIRC.

 

[Underway]

I'll keep my comments to future capability as we can discuss the current fleet on any number of other threads.

The RCN stated goal in Leadmark 2050 is to have an RCN task group of 4 CSC and a JSS with six Cyclones buzzing around. Add in the Submarine and MPA assets for flavour.

This is a change from 3 CSC in the original TG organization. The reasons for the change from 3 to 4 was as I understand them listed below.

1. The future fleet will have no AAW specialized ship in the TG organization. The old TG was a AAW Destroyer, 2 GP Frigates and a AOR. That was the starting point for developing the new TG. However, even though the new CSC would be more capable in AAW than the IRO class modern missiles are also more capable and are likely to come at ships in higher numbers.
2. Position, Detection, Action. It's often the case that one ship detects a threat and the rest of the TG does not. The detecting ship may not be in a position to engage the threat (wrong weapons or wrong place). This is why cooperative engagement capability was invented and LINK is so important. A four-ship TG ensures that there will be at least one ship in position to have effectors that can engage, and likely two ships can engage.
3. Change in Threat. The original TG was envisioned to be multifunctional but at its core, it was a submarine-hunting specialist group. The AOR kept them at sea, the frigates hunted and the destroyer ran the show and provided air cover against long-range threats or submarine-launched missiles that could get at them out into the mid Atlantic. A torpedo was the most common peer threat. That has changed. ASM and aircraft are the most likely threat as they have proliferated much more widely than submarines.
4. Change in RCN Focus. With the change in threat has come a change in RCN missions. No longer content with patrolling the oceans looking for submarines the RCN has in the last 20 years has responded to great power competition (annexation of Crimea, SCS friction), revolutions (Libya), wars (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon), counter-terrorism, and counter-drug operations. The as the missions changed the threats changed and the tactics need to change along with the ships. This means four CSC to optimize the TG for all these varied missions.

And so ends my thesis... lol

 

[Underway]

I think it was @Edward Campbell who asked about "drone carriers" in one of the threads. In order to not sidetrack it, here is an article about the Russians using an LHD for drone specific warfare. This is what Canada should be doing/looking at.

Russian Navy Project 23900 LHD to Carry Drones - Naval News

 

[KevinB]

I think it was @Edward Campbell who asked about "drone carriers" in one of the threads. In order to not sidetrack it, here is an article about the Russians using an LHD for drone specific warfare. This is what Canada should be doing/looking at.

Russian Navy Project 23900 LHD to Carry Drones - Naval News

Hmm Black Sea Fleet Flagship to be, with 900 Marines in it, with the drone to remove low signature vessels in advance of Amphibious Operations...
Seems just like a defensive stability force totally

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'll keep my comments to future capability as we can discuss the current fleet on any number of other threads.

The RCN stated goal in Leadmark 2050 is to have an RCN task group of 4 CSC and a JSS with six Cyclones buzzing around. Add in the Submarine and MPA assets for flavour.

This is a change from 3 CSC in the original TG organization. The reasons for the change from 3 to 4 was as I understand them listed below.

1. The future fleet will have no AAW specialized ship in the TG organization. The old TG was a AAW Destroyer, 2 GP Frigates and a AOR. That was the starting point for developing the new TG. However, even though the new CSC would be more capable in AAW than the IRO class modern missiles are also more capable and are likely to come at ships in higher numbers.
2. Position, Detection, Action. It's often the case that one ship detects a threat and the rest of the TG does not. The detecting ship may not be in a position to engage the threat (wrong weapons or wrong place). This is why cooperative engagement capability was invented and LINK is so important. A four-ship TG ensures that there will be at least one ship in position to have effectors that can engage, and likely two ships can engage.
3. Change in Threat. The original TG was envisioned to be multifunctional but at its core, it was a submarine-hunting specialist group. The AOR kept them at sea, the frigates hunted and the destroyer ran the show and provided air cover against long-range threats or submarine-launched missiles that could get at them out into the mid Atlantic. A torpedo was the most common peer threat. That has changed. ASM and aircraft are the most likely threat as they have proliferated much more widely than submarines.
4. Change in RCN Focus. With the change in threat has come a change in RCN missions. No longer content with patrolling the oceans looking for submarines the RCN has in the last 20 years has responded to great power competition (annexation of Crimea, SCS friction), revolutions (Libya), wars (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon), counter-terrorism, and counter-drug operations. The as the missions changed the threats changed and the tactics need to change along with the ships. This means four CSC to optimize the TG for all these varied missions.

And so ends my thesis... lol

A couple of questions.

1) The RCN stated goal in Leadmark 2050 is to have an RCN task group of 4 CSC and a JSS with six Cyclones buzzing around. Add in the Submarine and MPA assets for flavour.

• Considering that the above TG will come from one of our two coasts, will we be able to actually field 6 Cyclones at once in a TG? That will constitute about 40% of our entire fleet of Cyclones on one of our coasts, for the CSC’s it would be either 50% or higher, depending which coast gets 8 and which gets 7 CSC’s. Is this realistic?
• Assumes that we will be operating subs by the time that we’ll have 4 CSC’s operational on one coast.

2) A torpedo was the most common peer threat. That has changed. ASM and aircraft are the most likely threat as they have proliferated much more widely than submarines.
- Does this hold true for the Pacific as well as the Atlantic?

3) Change in RCN Focus. With the change in threat has come a change in RCN missions. No longer content with patrolling the oceans looking for submarines the RCN has in the last 20 years has responded to great power competition
- This assumes that we’ll be Atlantic focused again in our threat assessment. Do We need to start thinking about our other main ocean, the Pacific, where there will be the need to hunt and kill (potentially) CPC subs.

Looking forward to you’re learned/experienced comments.

 

[Underway]

A couple of questions.

1) The RCN stated goal in Leadmark 2050 is to have an RCN task group of 4 CSC and a JSS with six Cyclones buzzing around. Add in the Submarine and MPA assets for flavour.

• Considering that the above TG will come from one of our two coasts, will we be able to actually field 6 Cyclones at once in a TG? That will constitute about 40% of our entire fleet of Cyclones on one of our coasts, for the CSC’s it would be either 50% or higher, depending which coast gets 8 and which gets 7 CSC’s. Is this realistic?
• Assumes that we will be operating subs by the time that we’ll have 4 CSC’s operational on one coast.

2) A torpedo was the most common peer threat. That has changed. ASM and aircraft are the most likely threat as they have proliferated much more widely than submarines.
- Does this hold true for the Pacific as well as the Atlantic?

3) Change in RCN Focus. With the change in threat has come a change in RCN missions. No longer content with patrolling the oceans looking for submarines the RCN has in the last 20 years has responded to great power competition
- This assumes that we’ll be Atlantic focused again in our threat assessment. Do We need to start thinking about our other main ocean, the Pacific, where there will be the need to hunt and kill (potentially) CPC subs.

Looking forward to you’re learned/experienced comments.

1) There's a trick. TG don't always come from a single coast. They are often combined using assets from both coasts. See post 9-11 operations in the Indian Ocean as an example and the first Gulf War. TG's as need are often cobbled together from available assets. That being said, the ideal is a TG on each coast available.

2) Most coastal countries and many insurgent/rebel groups have access to missiles, whether they be even AT versions all the way up to modern Anit Ship missiles. But rebels and many countries don't have access to submarines. If they do have access to submarines they also have many many more aircraft and missiles than submarines. ASM are more widely proliferated by a long stretch. Even submarines shoot missiles now.

3) Yes but again missiles are more prolific and the battlespace can no longer be evenly divided by ships that hunt submarines and ships that shoot down aircraft. All ships need to be able to defend themselves from aircraft/missiles. There is no "safe ocean" where the submarines are outside the range of aircraft or missiles anymore.

My 2 cents anyways.

 

[Underway]

This one is for you @Colin Parkinson and @Kirkhill.

Sea Air Space 2022
Constellation Class Frigate stuff... I did not notice that it had a 57mm. That explains how they were able to get 32VLS onto it. A 127mm likely would have taken the weight/space for those extra missiles.

MSI Defence Platforms at 00:04:30
This gun may very well be on the CSC as the counter UAS system. For small UAS it seems like a good solution. For anything B.2 sized or larger then you step up to the 127mm or missile systems.

Here's what you both came for... Containerized Missile Systems at 00:07:55
I was wondering when LMC and BAE would do their own Containerized Missile Systems, and with basically a truck pulled Mk41 VLS you can now launch SM family missiles from shore, or Tomahawks, or whatever else you can cram in there. AOPS is now the most dangerous ship in the fleet...

Then some stuff about NSM on helicopters.. yawn!

 

[Kirkhill]

This one is for you @Colin Parkinson and @Kirkhill.

Sea Air Space 2022
Constellation Class Frigate stuff... I did not notice that it had a 57mm. That explains how they were able to get 32VLS onto it. A 127mm likely would have taken the weight/space for those extra missiles.

MSI Defence Platforms at 00:04:30
This gun may very well be on the CSC as the counter UAS system. For small UAS it seems like a good solution. For anything B.2 sized or larger then you step up to the 127mm or missile systems.

Here's what you both came for... Containerized Missile Systems at 00:07:55
I was wondering when LMC and BAE would do their own Containerized Missile Systems, and with basically a truck pulled Mk41 VLS you can now launch SM family missiles from shore, or Tomahawks, or whatever else you can cram in there. AOPS is now the most dangerous ship in the fleet...

Then some stuff about NSM on helicopters.. yawn!

There is a God! And apparently her name is LockMart!

About time.

Now if you can get the RCN, the RCAF and the RRCA to sit down at one table and sort this out in a hurry, that would be noice!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This one is for you @Colin Parkinson and @Kirkhill.

Sea Air Space 2022
Constellation Class Frigate stuff... I did not notice that it had a 57mm. That explains how they were able to get 32VLS onto it. A 127mm likely would have taken the weight/space for those extra missiles.

MSI Defence Platforms at 00:04:30
This gun may very well be on the CSC as the counter UAS system. For small UAS it seems like a good solution. For anything B.2 sized or larger then you step up to the 127mm or missile systems.

Here's what you both came for... Containerized Missile Systems at 00:07:55
I was wondering when LMC and BAE would do their own Containerized Missile Systems, and with basically a truck pulled Mk41 VLS you can now launch SM family missiles from shore, or Tomahawks, or whatever else you can cram in there. AOPS is now the most dangerous ship in the fleet...

Then some stuff about NSM on helicopters.. yawn!

Which version of Mk 38 mount do we have on the AOP's? Do you see an eventual switch to 30mm or suspect Canada will retain the 25mm?

The Constellation-class frigate reminds me very much as an modernized Halifax Class, do you agree?

 

[Underway]

Which version of Mk 38 mount do we have on the AOP's? Do you see an eventual switch to 30mm or suspect Canada will retain the 25mm?

The Constellation-class frigate reminds me very much as an modernized Halifax Class, do you agree?

I do not know which Mod it is, likely 3 given the EO/IR requirements.

Constellation class is if a Burke had a baby with an HFX. It's a classic frigate design but has stolen a lot of the Burke style (with the radars, and the mast). It is going to do some good work for the USN. They have been missing proper frigates for decades and this is long overdue.

 

[dimsum]

They have been missing proper frigates for decades and this is long overdue.

Given that frigates (in general) and destroyers (in general) are getting closer together in terms of size and armament, why do you think the USN is missing proper frigates? What will the Constellation-class do that the Arleighs aren't doing (or are unsuitable for)?

 

[FSTO]

Given that frigates (in general) and destroyers (in general) are getting closer together in terms of size and armament, why do you think the USN is missing proper frigates? What will the Constellation-class do that the Arleighs aren't doing (or are unsuitable for)?

The USN got rid of the OHP's and put all their eggs (frigate wise) in the LCS fiasco. The Burkes are more of a cruiser than a destroyer and should be more tied with the Carrier battle group as the AAW platform. The Burkes are too much ship for the frigate role (shitty little job ships) which calls for a lighter and somewhat cheaper ship to do the presence, ASW role.
IMO of course.

 

[Underway]

Given that frigates (in general) and destroyers (in general) are getting closer together in terms of size and armament, why do you think the USN is missing proper frigates? What will the Constellation-class do that the Arleighs aren't doing (or are unsuitable for)?

Basically what @FSTO stated. Burkes are designed for AAW and are not good ASW platforms and to big in the littorals. Frigates can bridge that gap quite a bit. They can do a lot of jobs that the Burkes should not do because they are smaller and cheaper but big enough to do most of those tasks.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Basically what @FSTO stated. Burkes are designed for AAW and are not good ASW platforms and to big in the littorals. Frigates can bridge that gap quite a bit. They can do a lot of jobs that the Burkes should not do because they are smaller and cheaper but big enough to do most of those tasks.

Burkes are crazy to do a cross pol on though; was weird realizing as a ph6 I knew more about their plant then their Engineering Officer (their tech knowledge is on the NCM side) but 4 LM2500s at 25,000 horsepower a piece is pretty awesome when you aren't paying for the fuel.

Also a massive crew; we could sail 2 CPFs for one Burke (or 3, with our crazy skeleton crew concept).

 

[Prairie canuck]

Vard Marine (Vancouver) has been contracted in the design and build in Chile of 4 smaller, 8000t, amphibious dock vessels. Something to consider?
Vard Marine Announces a new contract for the design of an Amphibious and Military Sea Transport Ship for the Chilean Navy Escotillón IV Program - Vard Marine

 

[Dale Denton]

Vard Marine (Vancouver) has been contracted in the design and build in Chile of 4 smaller, 8000t, amphibious dock vessels. Something to consider?
Vard Marine Announces a new contract for the design of an Amphibious and Military Sea Transport Ship for the Chilean Navy Escotillón IV Program - Vard Marine

We should realise we could've used these for the floods in Vancouver, transporting stuff to UKR, HADR anywhere, etc...

Its based on a VARD 7 Series 313.
VARD 7 313 - Vard Marine

PERFORMANCE Speed 20.0 kn max Range 8,000 NM @ 16 kn Endurance 30 days

TRANSPORT CAPACITIES Ro-ro deck 1,400 m2 15,000 ft2 470 lane-meters 1,540 lane-feet Cargo hold 2 x 550 m3 2 x 19,400 ft3 Flight deck 2 x medium lift helicopter 1,080 m2 11,600 ft2 Hangar 4 x medium lift helicopter 400 m2 4,300 ft2 RHIB (davit launched) 2 x 11 m 2 x 36’ Landing craft (davit launched) 2 x 15 m 2 x 50’

FACILITIES Medical 145 m2 1,560 ft2 Configurable operational 200 m2 2,150 ft2 space

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/VARD-7-313.pdf

 

[Prairie canuck]

We should realise we could've used these for the floods in Vancouver, transporting stuff to UKR, HADR anywhere, etc...

Its based on a VARD 7 Series 313.
VARD 7 313 - Vard Marine




https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/VARD-7-313.pdf

Not sure how these ships would have been useful to flood response, but yes to transport and HADR.
I get the impression that the ones for Chile will have a well deck to launch some AAV-7s it is acquiring from the US.

These smallish LPDs would provide a much needed capability.
Besides the obvious transport ability they may be able to relieve a frigate or 2 from offshore patrols and likely do well with piracy/drug patrols given they would have 2 helicopters aboard. With 4 it does give options depending on the size of deployments. Why send a big honkin ship when you only need 1 or 2 smaller ships. Maybe ice strengthen the hulls a bit. Nice step up from Kingston class on their way to the new CSCs...
Throwing a bunch of "green" tech at it wouldn't hurt the sales pamphlet either.

Can Someone introduce Vard and Davie....

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not sure how these ships would have been useful to flood response, but yes to transport and HADR.
I get the impression that the ones for Chile will have a well deck to launch some AAV-7s it is acquiring from the US.

These smallish LPDs would provide a much needed capability.
Besides the obvious transport ability they may be able to relieve a frigate or 2 from offshore patrols and likely do well with piracy/drug patrols given they would have 2 helicopters aboard. With 4 it does give options depending on the size of deployments. Why send a big honkin ship when you only need 1 or 2 smaller ships. Maybe ice strengthen the hulls a bit. Nice step up from Kingston class on their way to the new CSCs...
Throwing a bunch of "green" tech at it wouldn't hurt the sales pamphlet either.

Can Someone introduce Vard and Davie....

You want a piracy/drug patrol boat with ice strengthening and two helo that can carry up to 300 riders and a RORO deck? Go big or go home I guess (it's only marginally shorter than a frigate), never know when you might get arctic narco pirates.

If Davie wants work, they should probably get up to the same quality standard as the NSS yards. I've seen all 3 yards and Davie is still 3rd place.