Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think that, to a certain extent, we have strayed from what should be in the CSC RFQ to what type of Navy we should have. Talks of submarines and smaller vessels, be they corvettes or OPV's, is talk of what does the Navy has to accomplish (the missions), and then what is the best way to go about it (the mix - or lack thereof - of ship's types).

For instance, Chief Stoker spoke earlier of Roisin class vessels of the Irish Naval service (my choice would be their most current Samuel Becket class), which incidentally is Canadian designed. Those are nice gun boats and for things like the Fishpats and Op Caribe mentioned by ERC, they would be perfect vessels. But IMHO, they would need to replace the MCDV's, not the Frigates. But this doesn't mean that a mix of high end combatant and "Holland style" OPV's would not be appropriate as a replacement of the DDG and FFH's. However, this is in the realm of what type of overall Navy do we need and want.

And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.

Well done Humphrey!  I think we could all agree with that - and getting all parties (political) to come to the table and support the conclusions so that they survived changes of government.  It can't be impossible - others do it.

I also have to believe that a "modular" navy with a high-low range of vessels that can be upgraded easily to higher level combatants would allow the "peace-hawks" cover to support vessels that the "war-hawks" could upgrade when their turn at bat came.

 

[Underway]

Many a career is based solely around ways to reinvent the wheel while trying to appear to do something new.

I am of the strong belief that they need to eliminate "Leading Change" from the PER system for this exact reason  .  That one line has lead to so much grief over the years...

 

[Karel Doorman]

Well as said here before(topic),"Holland"Class is so big because we wanted to be able to go to the cairbs. in comfort(seafaring+capable in bad wether)as important in the North-Sea actually.
Don't know about the oceans surrounding Canada but think they want that aswell(plus the space on board)
As for price(you akes me to look up a few things(KM-Dutch Navy)all i could find is this:

-the total cost for the series(4)is 529.6 million euros(stated on the site of "marineschepen.nl/navyships.nl)
-As for how they're equippedthink you'll know this allready but ok)

Naamsein Naam In dienst    number(nato) -name-in active duty
P840 Holland 6-7-2012
P841 Zeeland 23-8-2013
P842 Friesland 22-1-2013
P843 Groningen 29-11-2013
Afmetingen 107,9 x 16,8 x 4,55      measurements(length-width-immersion) 
Max. waterverplaatsing 3710 ton  (displacement)
Max. snelheid 21,5 knopen              (max.speed)
Bemanning 52 + 38 opstappers (heliktoptercrew, boardingteam, medisch team) of 100 evacues  (crew 52+38 extra,helcoptercrew,boardingteam,medicalteam)or 100 evacs.
Voortstuwing 2x 5400 kW MAN dieselmotoren(propulsion)
2x 400 kW elektromotoren
Wapensystemen 1 Oto Melara 76mm kanon (weaponsystems)
1 automatisch 30 mm Marlin WS kanon
2 Hitrole automatische machinegeweren 12,7 mm
2 watermonitoren
Sensoren SMILE luchtwaarschuwingsradar
SEASTAR oppervlaktewaarschuwingsradar
GateKeeper infrarood/ electro-optisch waarschuwingssysteem
Mijnendetectie-sonar (mine-detection sonar)


Hope this helps(providing there's budget for these "baby's" ;D

gr,walter

 

[Kirkhill]

This is helping Walter.

 

[Kirkhill]

What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:

Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each
Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.

Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.

The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.

Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.

The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).

New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation. 

Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.

Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.

All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.

 

[Karel Doorman]

What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:

Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each
Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.

Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.

The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.

Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.

The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).

New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation. 

Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.

Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.

All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.

Could be a viable option for Canada,but to be fair(from what i heard on dutch forums)the price quote of the Absoloms is a bit...............well under priced,full option(sensors,waepons and all it would be closer the "zevens"/JSS prices but will look it up for you.
And ,a big and the Abs are not Frigates perse,if you get my drift.(more a support/frgate combo of som sorts,but i like them.

http://www.lieuwedevries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Karel-Doorman-refuels-ZrMs-Tromp.jpg

A pic in action "ZrMs Tromp" and "me"  [ our JSS Karel Doorman

gr,walter

 

[Kirkhill]

Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.

But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....

Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers

OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands

Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics

Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).

Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.

http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security

 

[Karel Doorman]

Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.

But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....

Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers

OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands

Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics

Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).

Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.

http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security

Damen is great in,as you say,adjusting/evolving an existing design-see R'dam to Johann(Joh. is an enlarged evolved R'dam),as is offcourse the Karel(but then in the JSS role) same family.
Same goes for Holland to 2600 (and rest)axe bow,so perhaps is Damen the right yard to turn to for Canada(building in time and on budget,flexible,etc)
As for replacement for the M-class,the jury is still out on that.There are there who'll like to see the Crossover(and then especially for the ASW role)but the Fremm ASW version is also an option wich is i think the most capable(asw role)now availeble,maybe even an evolved Type-26. (own adaptation for the KM)

Another possibility would be if Canada was interested(since Germany go their own way,ASW role)to work together again(if these ships are needed offcourse for the Canadian Navy)

Glad you saw my point about the costs Absolom-Iver(wich is offcourse more like F124/sevens,f-100,etc)

gr,walter

 

[Navy_Pete]

One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.

Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.

None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.

 

[AlexanderM]

One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.

Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.

None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.

The ability to upgrade the ships needs to be a top priority, this is why I like the Ivers so much, as the missile bay is all about flexibility. The APAR and Smart-L can be upgraded when needed, the missile launchers can be changed when needed. There is room in the missile bay for mission modules. The ships are a platform that can be upgraded.

 

[Karel Doorman]

My view on eventual cooperation between Canada and (the northern)European navies.

-I deliberately say northen because the simple fact is all are in the North and face similar seastate conditions first (colder,possible ice ,etc)JSS for example is "ice strengthend" and in future the northern searoutes will open up further due to "global warming" and we all need to be able to protect those shipping lanes.
-Canada has always been more European "minded" compared to (offcourse)USA.
-I also think that the Canadian Navy is more closely matched(not the same though) to (for example)Dutch Navy in how they do things.(we also need to be able to go for long distances,Caribs,Indonesia,etc)
-Therefore i think they are ideally placed to do a lot together(designing is one of them)as has happened in the past(JSS,APAR,etc)
-Both have "huge" budgets  [Xp ,not really hey.

So in short i see a lot off possibilities between them hopefully the Governments see this too and act accordingly(and go the distance),for now and in coming years we need :M-Class replacement(specifically ASW capability),new Walruses,MCM ships and maybe even replacement for the Rotterdam, so in short a lot.

I see a lot of potential for working together.

gr,walter

AS for the designs now available and then building them to be not a "show stopper" or newest "kid" on the block,well is that allways important?
Will allways be the case,designing for let's say 10 yrs then building for 5 ,you end up with an "15" year old design.As said more important is it that there are poss. to upgrade all systems(design is big enough for that) 

 

[AlexanderM]

There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay. It would then be possible to increase to either 48 or 64 cells on the MK41's and still have space left for the mission modules. And there would still be the additional ESSM launchers either side of the MK41's. In the future it would then be possible to rearrange the missile bay as systems evolve.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/sleek-modern-and-built-on-a-budget-denmarks-latest-frigate/

 

[jollyjacktar]

An interesting look inside of a FREMM, the Normandie.

https://youtu.be/PxSsHeiioG0

 

[Underway]

There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay.

And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....

Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41. 

All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.

 

[Kirkhill]

And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.

 

[Navy_Pete]

And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.

Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.

Ooops.  Sore point is it?  Apparently you have heard that one before.  OK, I will retract reusing the launchers (which basically appears to be a bit of scaffolding and a bucket (???) ) but stand by the assertion that the missiles are already in the system and thus do not have to be re-justified.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes, Chris, it is a sore point.

A lot of people don't seem to understand what naval missiles systems are.

The actual "steel box" of the launcher are not the big expensive part, so when you go from one ship class to the next, reusing this "steel box" brings little saving, if any, especially if  you have to inspect it and repair it for metal fatigue.

The second part, more expensive, of the launcher is the electronics and, as Navy_Pete justly pointed out, replacing it altogether or updating the programming and micro-chip capacity (an overhaul, in other words) of the existing one is par for the course in terms of cost, so you may as well buy the new electronics altogether and be up to date in terms of micro-chips that you can then continually update with new software as it comes out during the lifetime of the new ships.

But your reasoning on the missiles themselves is the part that is the furthest from the possible.

Missiles are basically rocket-ships. In the case of naval missiles, they  are of the solid booster type (same as the side boosters on the space shuttle). As soon as they are produced and put in their launchers, they begin to age, the "powder" immediately begins to chemically change, the various seals and stress point of the missile begin to work themselves loose, any seal that depends on plastics or rubbers begin to decay, etc.

Basically, the older the missile, the more likely it is to deteriorate to the point that it will fail one way or another at launch time. And they do have a specific lifetime (expiry date, so to speak) on them. Now other than putting the ship in danger from an enemy, the actual failure of missile is unlikely to threaten the life of the seaman onboard the launching vessel, but if you get to the point where most of your missiles don't fire or misfire or self destruct on the way to the target, they are not of much use to you. Remember what happened to the Challenger just because one of the "o" ring froze?

So after a certain amount of time, missiles loaded in a launch system no longer offer a sufficient guarantee that they will actually work out. Either you carry out a complete overhaul at the production plant er you buy new ones. That time where you should do that is certainly somewhere close to the lifetime of the warship they are loaded on, So, when a new class of ship is brought in service, we just buy new missiles and dispose of the old ones.

BTW, your favourite Navy knows that. Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure. They use it because they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat. For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW. The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties. They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now, at which point, the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.  The Danish approach is basically one that lets a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec buy top end frigates by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four. 

 

[AlexanderM]

And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....

Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41. 

All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.

As it will be years before we have ships in the water it isn't really an issue of what is available now, there are some in development, such as,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

The Naval Strike Missile (Joint Strike Missile) will also be able to launch from the MK41.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
and
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html