• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
Underway said:
I feel like I'm missing an image of the ship in the centre of the glossy.  It feels half done.

Where did it come from?  Link?
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant

There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Retired RCN said:
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf
They are showing both the Tomahawk and the Kongsberg which is the Joint Strike Missile, which is fine, one ship-to-ship, the other longer range, good capabilities. They are also showing the SM2, which is also fine, but if they do add a booster to the ESSM it would make the cells go further, more missiles.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
CloudCover said:
Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant

There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.

That's a very good article detailing why the single variant.  Operational availability.  Or the "Iroquois Effect" where the sudden rust out of a ship class led to the loss of AAW capability.  Super excited to see that they are far enough along to begin releasing this info to the public.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
530
Points
1,040
CloudCover said:
Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant

There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.

204 is such a low number when we don't have a training fleet suitable for most trades. Not a big deal if you have a bigger fleet with a variety of ships, but don't understand why we chronically under-bunk our ships, and the trend is getting worse since the CPF. Crew comfort is fine, but it is shortsighted to build a multitool then limit it's capabilities by not having enough space for a crew to use all the tools you plan to slap on it.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
595
Points
890
Navy_Pete said:
204 is such a low number when we don't have a training fleet suitable for most trades. Not a big deal if you have a bigger fleet with a variety of ships, but don't understand why we chronically under-bunk our ships, and the trend is getting worse since the CPF. Crew comfort is fine, but it is shortsighted to build a multitool then limit it's capabilities by not having enough space for a crew to use all the tools you plan to slap on it.


Could be that by reducing the number of crew required by 30ppl or 50ppl per ship, and understanding that a ship operating off the African coast most likely won't need to do everything it can on the high end -- alleviate some of the deployment burdens on our sailors, and also help crew more of the ships without members jumping around?

I have no idea if any of the above makes sense.  That's what I took away from the lower crew requirement.  That, and increased automation. 


:dunno:
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Retired RCN said:
Pretty impressive

Sea Ceptor, ESSM, SM2, NSM and Tomahawk? F*** me we're going to need a whole unit dedicated to missile readiness inspections. I'd volunteer but I'll be post-command by the time these babies actually start trialing their missiles.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,458
Points
940
You would think that wherever possible you have 2 bunks in any space for 1, that way you can double up as need be.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Are there any image mock ups of how the support bay is supposed load these mystery vehicles into the 12M RHIB and then retrieve them. I’m assuming the vehicle is 6x6 gator or similar.

Edit: found this but not sure if this layout is what RCN is looking at.  The early concept for the GCS had a mission stores bay that had an elevator down one deck and the mission bay on that lower deck extended all the way to aft to the end of the flight deck. ( my bad: that was the Black Swan- see attached image)
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/
 

Attachments

  • B3F0984E-D1AF-49C5-BDF4-E83AAD936453.jpeg
    B3F0984E-D1AF-49C5-BDF4-E83AAD936453.jpeg
    420.6 KB · Views: 92

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
Sea Ceptor, ESSM, SM2, NSM and Tomahawk? F*** me we're going to need a whole unit dedicated to missile readiness inspections. I'd volunteer but I'll be post-command by the time these babies actually start trialing their missiles.

How many of those can be launched from the back of a truck? 

Tomahawk
300px-BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG


NSM
pictrue-1-fyring.jpg


ESSM-NASAMS
nasams-1.jpg


NASAMS also launches the AIM-120 and the AIM-9 used by the RCAF.

Rounds in inventory.  Logistics nailed.

So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?



 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,458
Points
940
Chris Pook said:
How many of those can be launched from the back of a truck? 



So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?

Well we could become the 15th Coast Brigade again manning anti-ship missiles
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
325
Points
930
Colin P said:
Well we could become the 15th Coast Brigade again manning anti-ship missiles
York Redoubt (Halifax) already has protective hardstands for the missile launchers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5964557,-63.5531741,3a,75y,124.6h,88.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCOJ2uu7rNyo8V97D0b4UsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCOJ2uu7rNyo8V97D0b4UsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D156.98506%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Chris Pook said:
So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?

Interesting you should mention that.  The 127mm gun will fire the first 20 rounds in automatic load. That will take about 1 minute if all rounds are expended from the auto mag. In land attack mode, that’s the same as a field artillery battery ( probably close anyway).  After that the gun requires 6 people to load and operate the mount and system for sustained fire. If HVP and Vulcano like rounds are more available by the time these ships are operational, then the RCN will have a very powerful long range land attack weapon that the Army will want whenever possible and the RCA will no doubt want to have some degree of involvement with it.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
530
Points
1,040
CBH99 said:
Could be that by reducing the number of crew required by 30ppl or 50ppl per ship, and understanding that a ship operating off the African coast most likely won't need to do everything it can on the high end -- alleviate some of the deployment burdens on our sailors, and also help crew more of the ships without members jumping around?

I have no idea if any of the above makes sense.  That's what I took away from the lower crew requirement.  That, and increased automation. 


:dunno:

There is a lot of terminology thrown around about core crew vs max crew and whatnot, but normally the minimum crew required for non-combat operations is a fraction of the number of bunks.

For example, the 280s had around 300 bunks, but with 1960s designs with 1980s automation they could sail around the coast with just over 100 crew, and they were far more labour intensive then the CPFs.

However, if you need to, you can fill every single bunk and pack on enough food, water and provide hotel services (hot water, toilets etc) for everyone. Also your lifeboats are based on the max capacity, so that was never an issue.

The beds themselves aren't an issue, it's the things like lifeboats and all the other safety items, plus food, water and all the other sundries you need that very quickly become a problem. Those things need to be sorted out at the design phase, as you normally can't just make your fridges and storage tanks bigger without significant changes. You can easily operate with extra capacity no problem on those things, and give you a lot more flexibility to do things like send a ship to see with a raft of trainees (which we do all the time).
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
24
Points
180
Tomahawks?  I'll believe that when I see it. That sounds very offencey lol

Also would the cyclone need an upgrade for mid course direction? 

 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
*edit- took to long to load so my comment made no sense*

Looks like the RCN is going public with the Tomahawk.  Yay I can talk about it now!

This is a pretty comprehensive list of main equipment.  I'm glad I can now point to the RCN glossy and say "I told you so" to so many people... lol (none on here of course).

Hey Underway,

I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 16 ESSM, and 16 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a load out.

 
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Thumper81 said:
Hey Underway,

I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 32 ESSM, and 32 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a load out.
The Sea Ceptor has it's own launchers towards the back of the ship.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
61
Points
560
From US gov't:

Canada – Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC Missiles

PDF Version
Canada_20-82.pdf
Media/Public Contact
pm-cpa@state.gov
Transmittal No
20-82

WASHINGTON, November 5, 2020 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC missiles and related equipment for an estimated cost of $500 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Canada has requested to buy one hundred (100) Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC missiles; and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS) (canisters modified to employ the SM-2 Block IIIC missile). Also included is obsolescence engineering; integration and test activity associated with production of subject missiles; canister handling and loading/unloading equipment and associated spares; training and training equipment/aids; technical publications and data; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $500 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress and a contributor to military, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world.

This proposed sale will provide Canada with SM-2 Block IIIC missiles for installation on its planned 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships, ensuring its ability to operate alongside U.S. and Allied naval forces against the full spectrum of naval threats. Canada will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal U.S. contractor will be Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).

Implementation of the proposed sale will require U.S. Government and contractor personnel to visit Canada on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews, as well as to provide training and maintenance support in country.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/canada-standard-missile-2-sm-2-block-iiic-missiles
 
Top