Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[NavyShooter]

Ok,

I'll jump in on this one.

The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.

There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.

The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.

So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project. 

The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)

I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.

So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal.

NS

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks NS:  I was hoping you weren't sailing with 30 year old missiles in rusting out launchers. 

I think one of the things that apparently I am not getting across is that I would like to be able to separate the ship, the platform, from its "cargo" (cargo of death?).

It may not make sense in a fighter, which is basically an engine with a bunch of stuff wrapped around it.  But in the naval world I have difficulty understanding the need for such a finely balanced design that moving a tonne weight from here to there, or even off loading 10 tonnes, is going to materially affect the performance of the vessel.  Most vessels, outside of the Navy I grant you, are built to accommodate variable and shifting loads.  Either through pumping ballast or through active stabilization, or both.

That is why I keep coming back to the Danes OGBD.  They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.

 

[Half Full]

  They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.

Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.

 

[AlexanderM]

Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.

So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.

 

[Half Full]

So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.

With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.

 

[AlexanderM]

With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.

The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.

 

[Cloud Cover]

With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.

And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf 

 

[Kirkhill]

And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf

Or like this Sea Spider ATT from Atlas Elektronik 

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/naval-weapons/seaspider/

 

[AlexanderM]

Good to see anti-torpedo systems are becoming available.

My concept would be a sea mortar system, once you have a track on the torpedo, it would be fired in the air, then penetrate the water and detonate in front of or directly above the torpedo. Just a thought.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.

Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?

 

[AlexanderM]

Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?

I would think it's propulsion, but I'm not sure.

This article suggests the top speed is based on the propulsion system, I can't imagine a hull speed of 30 knots.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/

 

[Kirkhill]

From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type: Absalon-class support ship
Displacement: 6,300 tonnes
Length: 137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam: 19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft: 6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion:
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed: 24 knots (44 km/h)
Range: 9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type: (Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement: 6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length: 138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam: 19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft: 5.3 m (17 ft)
Propulsion: Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: +9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type: De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement: 6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length: 144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam: 18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft: 5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 Edit: 4.2+ 4.2+ 18.5+ 18.5 = 45.4 MW of power, a little bit less lot more power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Edited per Walter's correction.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Says "over 28kts" which could be 30 or more. Depending on the hull, getting more might mean a substantial increase in BHP, with a cost against sea-keeping and low speed handling and fuel consumption. There is rarely a free ride in ship design. 

As Chris shows that last bit extra comes at a bigger cost

 

[AlexanderM]

Is there a problem with having a top speed of 30 knots?

 

[Karel Doorman]

From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type: Absalon-class support ship
Displacement: 6,300 tonnes
Length: 137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam: 19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft: 6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion:
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed: 24 knots (44 km/h)
Range: 9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type: (Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement: 6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length: 138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam: 19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft: 5.3 m (17 ft)
Propulsion: Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: +9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type: De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement: 6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length: 144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam: 18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft: 5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 MW of power, a little bit less power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Chris one thing thought about the RR Speys:


Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each(each one)
4 × Wärtsilä-Deutz D620 V12 diesel-generators, 1,680 kW (2,250 hp) each

2 × propeller shafts, 5-bladed controllable pitch propellers

So it's actually ;18.5+18.5+4.2+4.2=45.4 MW

gr,walter,

ps,it's the plan to replace the two "Speys" with the newer Rolls-Royce WR-21 ,even more power( allready taken in account when building these ships,but engines where not there yet)

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the correction Walter.  Mea maxima culpa.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I like the mix of turbines and diesels. You can cruise on just the 2 diesels, but if you are likely to need the turbine, then you need to have it up and running and running turbine sucks a lot of fuel even if it's not doing anything. The advantage of the 4 diesels is you can swap the pairs so you can service one set while underway and spread out the hours and the overhauls. Turbines generally weigh less than comparable power diesels and would have a faster response time if running. Anyone here have experience with the time difference between bringing up a modern ship diesel and modern marine turbine up to usable power from cold?

Most of my turbine knowledge comes from our very ancient Gnome Turbine of the SRN6 

 

[Karel Doorman]

All icould find is some common knowledge:

Rated power: 25.2 MW
Specific fuel consumption: ~190 g/kWh
Main module wet weight: 45974 kg
Twin-spool design + free rotating power Turbine
Six-stage LP compressor
Intercooler
Six-stage HP compressor
Exhaust heat recuperator
Nine radial combustors
Single-stage HP turbine: 8,100 rpm (135 Hz)
Single-stage LP turbine 6,200 rpm (103.33 Hz)
Five-stage free power turbine 3,600 rpm (60 Hz)

So for "the Sevens" it would then be :

25.2+25.2+4.2+4.2=58.8,

Don't know what this would mean for topspeed but they're(WR-21)are also much more efficient(fuel)

gr,walter

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

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

gr,walter

Its Absalon...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class. 

The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars.
The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.

 

[AlexanderM]

Its Absalon...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class. 

The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars.
The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.

Hey Mike, any idea what the hull speed is on the Huitfeldt?  Also, the MK41 launchers, do you know what size they are, Defense, Tactical or Strike version? I imagine any of the three could be used.