Author Topic: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)  (Read 6178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 225,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,377
  • Living the staff life
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2020, 12:09:13 »
Just saw a new CAF recruiting advert. Women and darker melanin skin tones were very prevalent, although there was one visual of the oppressor so not a 100% win!  ;D

Do you have a link, or was it on TV/other media?
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,079
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2020, 13:23:04 »
Make me king for the day and I would do the following:

Have the AOP's fitted with the 57mm Mk 3 and the existing 25mm moved to another location, along with an improved FCS

Prep the Astreix to receive either the 25mm and/or .50cal NRWS and purchase the systems. Install as required.

Fit the same 25mm NRWS to the Kingston class and perhaps one of the .50cal NRWS. Ensure there is a FCS to support it

Modify the Orcas to accept the .50cal NRWS, purchase the systems and basic FCS to support it. Equip a couple of them mainly to allow training and as operational needs arise.

Purchase a number of small systems like the French Mistral on a Simbad mount and prep areas on the AOPs and Astreix for them. Conduct trials and training to see how such systems can be integrated into the current ship defenses.

The above gives you a lot of commonality throughout the fleet, so a reservist training on a Orca with the NRWS, can now go to the AOPs or Kingstons and be familiar with the systems. Same goes for people moving to and from the Halifax's and AOP's.

Could you find deck space on the AOPS (or even the Kingstons) to strap on something like this?  Already being added to the Yanks LCS and the Norwegian Skjold.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/june-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4049-video-royal-norwegian-navy-skjold-class-corvette-fires-nsm-against-coastal-land-target.html

Quote
The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is an anti-ship and land-attack missile developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA). The original Norwegian name was Nytt sjømålsmissil (literally New sea target missile, indicating that it is the successor of the Penguin missile); the English marketing name Naval Strike Missile was adopted later. The missile will weigh slightly more than 400 kg (880 lb) and have a range of more than 185 km (100 nm). The usage of a high strength titanium alloy blast/fragmentation warhead from TDW is in line with the modern lightweight design and features insensitive high-explosive.

An Naval Strike Missile coastal battery consists of three missile launch vehicles, one battery command vehicle, three combat command vehicles, one mobile communication center, one mobile radar vehicle with TRS-15C radar, one transport and loading vehicle, and one mobile workshop vehicle. Each MLV carries 4 missiles and can be connected to the CCV by optical fiber or radio up to 10 km (6.2 mi) away; up to 6 launchers with 24 missiles can be netted together at once. When installed on ships, NSMs can be deck-mounted in packs of one, two, three, four, or six launchers. In June 2013 Poland completed the Coastal Missile Division equipped with 12 NSM and 23 vehicles on Jelcz chassis.



https://militaryleak.com/2020/05/17/us-marines-will-field-jltv-rogue-fires-vehicle-with-naval-strike-missile/

Not quite a Tomahawk but more versatile than Harpoon
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,134
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2020, 03:13:13 »
Do you have a link, or was it on TV/other media?
It was on CBC "The National" on Monday night I think.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,079
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2020, 11:52:05 »
It seems a good Sunday to propose more off-kilter thinking.

Headline - Get rid of surface sailors. 

(Maybe not all of them - but it makes for a good headline)

1. Surface vessels are targets.
1a. Surface vessels can't out run missiles.
1b . Missiles are cheaper than ships.  (You can buy a lot for each ship).

2. Submarines are harder to hit.
2a. Submarines still can't out run missiles but they are harder to find
2b. Submarines are more expensive than ships (but do they have to be?)

Do all submarines need crews?  What size of vessel do you need to carry 50 ready to fire weapons of the Tomahawk/Harpoon-NSM/Mk48-Stingray range without a crew?  Does it need to dive deep or does it just need to be able to get below the waves?

3. Lilypads
3a. US Marines (and Royals) looking for cheap lilypads 
      https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,122373.msg1626047.html#msg1626047     
      https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,132613.msg1617778.html#msg1617778

The vessels involved can barely make seaway.  With speeds in the 14 kt range they are not designed to out run anything.  Conclusion?  They are designed to be sunk.  They are expendable.  Unfortunate for the crews.  Fortunately they are only looking at 40 or so sailors in wastage.

But, maybe, they don't need to waste those sailors?

Here is the marines notional Lilypad.



Here is a Robot Lilypad in trials


https://news.usni.org/2020/09/04/6-companies-awarded-contracts-to-start-work-on-large-unmanned-surface-vehicle


And helicopters become the Universal Connectors on a mobile, shape-shifting chessboard of cheap, robot lilypads guarded by a fleet of manned submarines and unmanned submersible arsenals.

Meanwhile, what is the impact of permanent, self-fueling, swarm of UAVs supplying top-cover?  With a mix of Fire Scouts included for reactive firepower.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/24/navy-to-demo-swarming-drones-at-sea-in-july.html



You will still need a floating hangar with bodies for maintenance of all those helicopters.  But perhaps you won't need floating barracks if you can get troops expeditiously from the spouse and kids to the appropriate lilypad.

Fire at Will!  (My name's Chris).   ;D   :cheers:





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 147,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,718
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2020, 12:38:55 »
It seems a good Sunday to propose more off-kilter thinking.

Headline - Get rid of surface sailors. 

(Maybe not all of them - but it makes for a good headline)

1. Surface vessels are targets.
1a. Surface vessels can't out run missiles.
1b . Missiles are cheaper than ships.  (You can buy a lot for each ship).

2. Submarines are harder to hit.
2a. Submarines still can't out run missiles but they are harder to find
2b. Submarines are more expensive than ships (but do they have to be?)

Do all submarines need crews?  What size of vessel do you need to carry 50 ready to fire weapons of the Tomahawk/Harpoon-NSM/Mk48-Stingray range without a crew?  Does it need to dive deep or does it just need to be able to get below the waves?

3. Lilypads
3a. US Marines (and Royals) looking for cheap lilypads 
      https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,122373.msg1626047.html#msg1626047     
      https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,132613.msg1617778.html#msg1617778

The vessels involved can barely make seaway.  With speeds in the 14 kt range they are not designed to out run anything.  Conclusion?  They are designed to be sunk.  They are expendable.  Unfortunate for the crews.  Fortunately they are only looking at 40 or so sailors in wastage.

But, maybe, they don't need to waste those sailors?

Here is the marines notional Lilypad.



Here is a Robot Lilypad in trials


https://news.usni.org/2020/09/04/6-companies-awarded-contracts-to-start-work-on-large-unmanned-surface-vehicle


And helicopters become the Universal Connectors on a mobile, shape-shifting chessboard of cheap, robot lilypads guarded by a fleet of manned submarines and unmanned submersible arsenals.

Meanwhile, what is the impact of permanent, self-fueling, swarm of UAVs supplying top-cover?  With a mix of Fire Scouts included for reactive firepower.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/24/navy-to-demo-swarming-drones-at-sea-in-july.html



You will still need a floating hangar with bodies for maintenance of all those helicopters.  But perhaps you won't need floating barracks if you can get troops expeditiously from the spouse and kids to the appropriate lilypad.

Fire at Will!  (My name's Chris).   ;D   :cheers:

Missiles also can't hit submarines. Torpedoes can but some submarines can also outrun torpedoes  8)

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 768
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2020, 13:08:11 »
Or something like this?

https://thefutureofthings.com/4616-smx-25-a-ship-sub-hybrid/

Deploy quickly to theatre with a small crew.  Low radar cross section.  UAV to extend sensor range.  Missiles to strike surface/land targets.

When attacked by enemy missiles it dives below the surface to evade attack.  When attacked by enemy torpedoes it surfaces and uses its speed to attempt to outrun them.


Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,660
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2020, 13:49:36 »
I think GI Joe had one of those?

For the RCN about as out of the box we will see is an stealthy armed trawler that can perform some remote sensing mine warfare, a bit player in asw using unmanned craft and perhaps another auxiliary role involving an NTOG or SF mandate.
... Move!! ...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,079
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: RCN Weapons System (historical, current, planned)
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2020, 14:52:32 »
Following Up

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-wants-test-its-unmanned-battle-fleet-168846

Quote
September 11, 2020  Topic: Security  Blog Brand: The Buzz  Tags: U.S. NavyUnmanned ShipsAutonomous VehiclesDronesNaval Warfar
The U.S. Navy Wants to Test Its Unmanned Battle Fleet
Can drones truly take over the high seas?

by Peter Suciu
The U.S. Navy is already ramping up its efforts to introduce and deploy large numbers of interwoven, armed surface drones, a move bringing an entirely new sphere of tactics, techniques and procedures. These surface drones include medium, large and small Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs).

The next step will be assembling those unmanned systems for an exercise.

Earlier this week the U.S. Pacific Fleet announced that it will deploy a combination of early developmental undersea, surface and more mature aerial unmanned systems to the Indo-Pacific next year to address a battle problem and that will test the current utility of the assets now available, reported USNI News.

“We’re shooting for early 2021 to be able to run a fleet battle problem that is centered on unmanned,” Rear Adm. Robert Gaucher, director of maritime headquarters at the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said on Tuesday at the Defense, Protection, Security virtual conference that was sponsored by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). “It will be on the sea, above the sea and under the sea.”

Gaucher added that while the details have been fully worked out, the exercise will entail a command-and-control aspect, and will demonstrate how autonomy can fit into addressing actual fleet problems.

Fewer Sailors, More Autonomy

The U.S. Navy has been slowly starting to deploy unmanned systems, and these mostly include small-scale unmanned surface vessels.

In July, the U.S. Navy awarded L3Harris a $35 million contract to design and fabricate a prototype medium unmanned surface vehicle (MUSV), which is expected to be delivered for testing by the end of 2022. This is one of the latest efforts by the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a fully automated robotic warship that could be capable of locating and tracking enemy submarines and other maritime threats.

In addition, the Navy is also committed to large unmanned surface vessels (LUSV), which could be akin to an external weapons platform that is controlled remotely by larger manned surface combatants.

While the American fleet throughout its history has shifted back and forth between naval concepts favoring fewer large ships or more smaller ones, the fleet architecture currently under development for the first time includes large numbers of robotic vessels. The question now is how those can be integrated into the fleet.


My sense is that the US Navy is moving towards finding its Whaler for the 2020s*.

https://news.usni.org/2020/09/04/6-companies-awarded-contracts-to-start-work-on-large-unmanned-surface-vehicle
https://www.gibbscox.com/blog/gibbscoxmusv
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-awards-contract-to-l3harris-to-develop-musv-prototype/
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/navy-inks-deal-for-new-unmanned-fleet/
https://news.usni.org/2020/08/27/marines-already-in-industry-studies-for-light-amphibious-warship-in-bid-to-field-them-asap

Here is the image for the Light Amphibious Warship



Here is the image for the Gibbs & Cox / L3Harris Large Unmanned Surface Vessel



Here are images for the Ghost Fleet Overlord Phase 1 trials




And here are links for Fast Supply Vessels built by Swiftships - They are cheap, simple, adaptable and long in service.

https://swiftships.com/175-ft-fast-supply-vessel/
https://swiftships.com/185-ft-crew-and-supply-vessel/

From what I can gather the USN is looking at two classes of sea-going vessels, a Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel with plans to field up to 40 vessels in the near term (5 year), and a Large Unmanned Surface Vessel.  I can't find the numbers planned.   At the same time the USMC is seeking the Light Amphibious Warfare Vessel with plans to field up to 30 vessels.

The MUSV is expected to be an ISR platform in the 45 to 190 ft range with a displacement of 500 tons - almost identical to the WW2 Flower corvettes.  A 35 MUSD contract has been awarded to L3Harris for a MUSV prototype to be designed and built and trialled for delivery in 2023.  8 more to follow if successful.  32 more if adopted.

The LUSV is expected to be a missile platform launching missiles from vertical launch tubes (apparently containerized and to be carried as cargo on the deck).  That vessel is to be based on a 1000 to 2000 ton commercial hull of 200 to 300 ft in length drawing on the expertise of the Offshore Supply Vessel (OSV) industry, with particular interest in the class known as the Fast Supply Vessel or Fast Intervention and Supply Vessel.  Congress is telling the USN to hold up on deciding what to do about the VLS system for the moment.  The project goes by the name Ghost Fleet Overlord.

The Marines LAW is expected to be a 200 ft beachable cargo hauler with a helideck and RoRo capability with accommodation for 75 marines (and up to 40 crew).  It too is based on existing commercial OSV standards and is intended for fast delivery. They are looking for up to 30 vessels.

My sense is that there is not a great deal of difference between the Marines OSV (LAW) and the Navy's OSV (LUSV) beyond the speed and I am sure the Marines would not complain if they could get a faster vessel at an acceptable price.

My  Concept of Operations would be to have the Unmanned Fleet hover unmanned but then fly on a skeleton crew when working in tight sea ways and when conducting beaching and docking ops if necessary.  The Marines are swapped out for the missiles essentially and are just another round for the Navy to launch.

Also the USN has some 38 LCS hulls in the water, under construction or under contract with an intention to supply them with a total of 66 crews.  The LCS (3104 tonnes light - Indepence Class Trimaran) may not be appropriate for bouncing around the briny. It may be overpriced.  It may even have a short lifespan.  But.  As a highspeed link between hovering lily pads, as a command and control node, as a combination local ferry and Very Large PT boat it could be integrated into the ConOps.  As could the 14 Spearfish class 43 knot,  1500 tonne, EPFs previously known as JHSVs with crews of 41 and capacity for 600 short tons and 312 troops with an MH-60 and ability to land CH-53K Sea Stallions.

That is an awful lot of moving squares on the chess board.

And all backed by


2x LHA
8x LHD
11x LPD
12x LSD
2x LCC
1x Special Warfare Support Vessel
2x Expeditionary Support Base - Expeditionary Mobile Base
2x Expeditionary Support Base - Expeditionary Transfer Dock
130x Military Sealift Command Ships
Civilian Cargo Carriers

Protected by

10x CVNs (+1)
22x CGs
67x DDGs
51x SSNs
4x SSGNs
14x SSBNs

Looking over that list, and the capabilities it represents, particularly if concentrated geographically and not scattered hither and yon on high tech constabulary duties, I don't think there are many competitors in a position to win a battle, much less a war.   Of course, for the concentration to happen it may require friends to step in and handle the constabulary duties to keep the sea lanes clear.

























*
Quote
In early 1939, with the risk of war with Nazi Germany increasing, it was clear to the Royal Navy that it needed more escort ships to counter the threat from Kriegsmarine U-boats. One particular concern was the need to protect shipping off the east coast of Britain. What was needed was something larger and faster than trawlers, but still cheap enough to be built in large numbers, preferably at small merchant shipyards, as larger yards were already busy. To meet this requirement, the Smiths Dock Company of Middlesbrough, a specialist in the design and build of fishing vessels, offered a development of its 700-ton, 16 knots (18 mph; 30 km/h) whale catcher Southern Pride.[6][7] They were intended as small convoy escort ships that could be produced quickly and cheaply in large numbers. Despite naval planners' intentions that they be deployed for coastal convoys, their long range meant that they became the mainstay of Mid-Ocean Escort Force convoy protection during the first half of the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette#Design

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus