Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 417061 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,439
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1500 on: May 03, 2019, 06:23:00 »
Is the Capt(N) to the right Canadian?  If so, when did long sleeves, a tie, and ribbons become an order of dress? #WhereIsTheCoxn
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline eliminator

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 224
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1501 on: May 03, 2019, 06:36:22 »
Is the Capt(N) to the right Canadian?  If so, when did long sleeves, a tie, and ribbons become an order of dress? #WhereIsTheCoxn

Nope, Australian.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 139,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,620
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1502 on: May 03, 2019, 06:42:14 »
Correct - that's why the word AUSTRALIA is on the bottom of the epaulettes.  ;D

And it's a proper order of dress for them, as they actually can walk out in that order of dress. Not so in Canada or the UK, where you can wear your long sleeve shirt and tie when walking around the office, but put on the sweater or jacket when walking out. For us, if walking out in a shirt only is proper, we switch to the short sleeve one.

I suspect the Australian officer showed up in that order of dress for the occasion and the other ones took their jackets off for the picture, so it would look better with everyone in the same get up.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,742
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1503 on: May 03, 2019, 07:33:44 »
Kipper -  No front pockets. No accoutrements
Canucks - Front Pockets. No accoutrements
Aussie - Front Pockets. Accoutrements

Diversity at work! :) 

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1504 on: May 11, 2019, 13:40:49 »
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the purpose of the cells shown at 07:56, 08:23 and at 08:28 (onwards) in the link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMdQ8QBYD8

Also note that there are no SeaRAM launchers shown in this model. Is it possible that SeaRAM has been deleted in favour of Sea Ceptor (CAMM), and that those 6 cells (located aft of the largest exhaust portal in the funnel superstructure, between the two SAT domes, and forward of the canister missile launchers), are ExLS? This would give a potential loadout of 24 Sea Ceptor missiles for the CIADS role, with, presumably, an unknown quantity of ESSM loaded into the Mk41's for intermediate range defence, and SM-2 for the longer range. MBDA had a booth at CANSEC last year and was pushing this system for the CIADS requirement, so this is not completely crazy (https://www.janes.com/article/80433/sea-ceptor-pitched-for-csc-ciads-cansec18d1)

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1505 on: May 11, 2019, 13:46:47 »
Very much out of my lane here, and after following this thread I can see there are some very knowledgeable ppl here on the tech side.

Is the SM-2 on it's way out, in favour of the SM-3 with far greater range?  Or are they 2 different tools for 2 different jobs?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 139,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,620
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1506 on: May 11, 2019, 16:21:08 »
The SM-2 (particularly Block III) are still the "standard" anti-aircraft missile (little joke here), but if you are looking for more range, the way to go is the SM-2ER.

The SM-3 is a modified SM-2ER optimized for anti ballistic missile interception/defence. So, not the replacement for the SM-2.

The latest derivative of the SM-2 that has been updated for defence against both aircraft and high velocity missiles (non-ballistic) is the SM-6 and it is now entering service in greater numbers. I suspect that, given a smart government is in place, the SM-6 will be the ones found on the CSC's.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1507 on: May 11, 2019, 17:07:21 »
Thank You.  I was actually thinking of the SM-6 when I was called it the SM-3 by mistake. 

Read some lengthy articles about the SM-6 and engaging aircraft at incredible distances. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1508 on: May 15, 2019, 08:13:15 »
Interesting that the Australians are looking at building a number of prototypes blocks for their Type 26 prior to the actually building of their first block.  Their prototype blocks will be built to the RN Type 26 specs, not the RAN Hunter class specs.

Their approach is this - “The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”

Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight? 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/awd-build-yields-lessons-for-hunter-class
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 15:50:29 by Czech_pivo »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,346
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1509 on: May 15, 2019, 12:11:16 »
That would mean Irving would have to admit that they need improvement.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 150
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1510 on: May 15, 2019, 12:28:24 »
“The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”

Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight?
To train their workforce and qualify their shipyard, I thought Irving was using this.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1511 on: May 15, 2019, 12:55:29 »
That would mean Irving would have to admit that they need improvement.

Well, when the Aussie's talk about 'the width' of the block I think Irving should be paying attention as they had issues with HDW and the assembly of the bow block with the midship/stern blocks.....

“We want (designer and shipbuilder) BAE Systems to build a Type 26 block because they know how to do that, they know all the problems, they know exact widths, they know the hours that it will take, and they know the costs,” Paddy Fitzpatrick, Assistant Secretary Ship Acquisition"

 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 14:22:32 by Czech_pivo »

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 150
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1512 on: May 15, 2019, 14:57:43 »
Quote
UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success

Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launcher System (ExLS) three-cell stand-alone launcher has been selected for two naval surface combatant programmes, the company has confirmed.

Speaking to Jane’s at Undersea Defence Technology 2019 (UDT 2019), a company spokesperson said the ExLS launcher has been selected for the Brazilian Navy’s new corvette programme by Águas Azuis – a consortium comprising Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) and Embraer. Selection of Aguis Azuis, offering a TKMS MEKO A-100 corvette design, was announced in March.

The launcher is also set to be installed on the Royal Canadian Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), the spokesperson said. A team led by Lockheed Martin Canada, offering a derivative of the United Kingdom’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship, was selected as the preferred bidder for the CSC programme by prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding in October 2018 and subsequently awarded the design contract in February 2019.
https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 745
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1513 on: May 15, 2019, 18:25:17 »
Interesting that the Australians are looking at building a number of prototypes blocks for their Type 26 prior to the actually building of their first block.  Their prototype blocks will be built to the RN Type 26 specs, not the RAN Hunter class specs.

Their approach is this - “The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”

Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight? 

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/awd-build-yields-lessons-for-hunter-class

I don't think they are talking about the mega blocks; they are likely referring to the first stage blocks.  Those are usually about 10-20' square by a deck high (depending on location). Those ones get consolidated into larger blocks, then eventually into the mega blocks.  There are a few differrent ways to put them together as well; we went with vertical mega blocks, but another way is the ring build where the mega blocks are horizontal. This takes a bit bigger of a footprint, larger cranes etc but lets you start running cables much earlier.

There is a lot of accuracy control stuff that is good to practice and get right at the small block stage, as well as figure out all your weld parameters to minimize distortion. Stuff like properly sequencing/scheduling the workers, sorting out the pack ups for the needed parts and making sure the build plan works in the shipyard are all good things to do.

Found a pretty good paper that explains it, but there is a lot of industrial engineering that goes into minimizing wasted effort and rework, and that's the kind of thing you need to do right down in the weeds to roll out over the forest, or it doesn't work.

http://isomase.org/OMAse/Vol.3-2016/Section-2/3-3.pdf

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,459
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,062
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1514 on: May 16, 2019, 07:20:12 »
To train their workforce and qualify their shipyard, I thought Irving was using this.

All those trained through building the AOPS will get laid off, go get jobs elsewhere, and not come back once CSC starts sometime around 2035...
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,459
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,062
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1515 on: May 16, 2019, 07:22:22 »
Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the latest date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.

I'll start.

I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.

Who's next?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1516 on: May 16, 2019, 07:53:15 »
Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the latest date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.

I'll start.

I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.

Who's next?

If that's the case, we'll get 15 AOPS and 6 CSC.......

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 891
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1517 on: May 16, 2019, 08:00:15 »
https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

Well this is a great idea.  The shorter but flexible launchers from the ExLS can host a bunch of things that improve the survivability of the ship. Longbow launch capability will really increase ship defence against swarm attack boats by a significant margin.  So 32 Mk41 VLS and 6 ExLS.  CSC's gonna have some teeth.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,295
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1518 on: May 16, 2019, 09:13:34 »
Well this is a great idea.  The shorter but flexible launchers from the ExLS can host a bunch of things that improve the survivability of the ship. Longbow launch capability will really increase ship defence against swarm attack boats by a significant margin.  So 32 Mk41 VLS and 6 ExLS.  CSC's gonna have some teeth.

Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 251
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1519 on: May 16, 2019, 09:43:19 »
Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

Maybe we should start the 'Go Fund Me' campaign now?

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 542,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,996
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1520 on: May 16, 2019, 09:53:12 »
Maybe we should start the 'Go Fund Me' campaign now?
Maybe VAdm Norman will dedicate a portion of the profits from his inevitable book.

I've no doubt that there's a line up of potential publishers, and I know I'd buy a copy... before Paul Gross ruined it with a 'movie adaptation.'  ;D

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1521 on: May 16, 2019, 12:57:13 »
Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

SKT - who sez they would buy 15 sets of missiles?  1 set and rotate it to the "duty" ship.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 343
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1522 on: May 16, 2019, 13:55:21 »
I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 891
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1523 on: May 16, 2019, 15:13:26 »
Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...

Nahhh, just lease them like we do with the Harpoons.  Only buy if you shoot them.

To put it on paper a potential loadout:

12 Tomahawks (in 12 VLS) - land attack
12 SM6 (in 12 VLS) - area air defence, ASuW
32 ESSM II quad packed (in 8 VLS) for point defence and limited consort defence
12 Longbow Hellfires quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for FAC/FIAC defence
12 RAM missiles quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for close in self defence
127mm for its multiple roles
2x30mm for FAC/FIAC defence
8 Naval Strike Missiles for ASuW
Cyclone for ASW

I'm a CPF fan.  A big one.  But this is crazy.  There is no comparison, it's an entirely different ballpark for just the weapons.  The self defence capability in all aspects of future war from a hardkill perspective is just amazing.  And the ability to have offensive strike on an enemy from multiple other systems...  It's going to rewrite the doctrine and attitude of the navy with all that offensive ability.  The swagger will be real.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,026
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1524 on: May 16, 2019, 15:34:48 »
Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the latest date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.

I'll start.

I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.

Who's next?

I heard just yesterday of a commission date of "never" because the politician that was at our lunch told me they do not support buying weapons, preferring instead a department of peace.  Although unlikely NDP will form government, they have a decent chance of holding the balance of power in a Liberal-Green-NDP coalition.
Living the lean life.