Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[AlexanderM]

A little (reloadable) point defence humour:

That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells. Oops, that was meant for Underway.

 

[suffolkowner]

Thanks Underway and others for the torpedo comments

Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?

Just to note the primary differences in armament between the UK/AUS/CAN versions. via Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate

the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS

the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
          24 cell mk41
CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
          32 cell mk 41
AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor

 

[Underway]

That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells.

Math is hard.

Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?

None that I know of.  Maybe low and really slow, like hovering slow.  The 30mm are for surface engagements.  Having them on the quarters is a good place for them as if you turn the ship away from fast boat attackers you have quite good arcs of fire.  And you increase the time to intercept.  It's like the Brits planned it that way.

the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS

the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
          24 cell mk41
CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
          32 cell mk 41
AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor

It's interesting the different ways each nation has gone.  All three have selected a different radar and different weapons loadouts for their particular strategic situations and fleet mix.  Not having a large amphib or carrier to defend our fleet mix is different, thus our choices were as well.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good?

Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm. Or is this type of low cost secondary armament just not worth listing at this time for such a large and complex program? 

Cheers.

 

[Underway]

Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good?

AFAIK the Phalanx wasn't even part of the bid.  In almost every category Sea Ceptor is way better than the CIWS. And with a 30mm to cover off the surface engagement portion there really is no need for CIWS.

My personal opinion is that CIWS time has come.  Its a bandaid measure that's cheap, familiar and does little in a modern battlespace.  It's the smaller calibre armament that is waiting for its Battle of Tsushima moment.  Better to have a dedicated small boat killer weapon (30mm) which is designed to do that job, and can engage multiple targets over longer engagements.

Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm.

So I looked up the 30mm from BAE and the open-source states that it's got the ability to attack UAS with the "capability to engage close-in air threats at greater than 65 degrees elevation coupled with the air-bursting munition offers outstanding probability of hit and mission success".  The 30mm version can be fitted with a coaxial 50 cal, it also uses FLIR, EO/IR and laser rangefinding to track targets.  The range is approx 3 km (which is interesting because Sea Ceptor has a min published range of 1km).

They are also working on a laser weapon that could be mounted in the same place of be coaxial to the 30mm.

So yah, options vs UAS.  Not sure how effective but options.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Agreed on the gun-based CIWS as a necessity as an opponent can easily send 100 small and relatively slow munitions (think IAI Harpy loitering munitions), and by force of numbers overwhelm your defensive missiles. 

I hope the RCN PMO is reviewing exactly how Turkey used them in Armenia as that should provide a decent illustration of where that threat is going to develop.

 

[Underway]

Agreed on the gun-based CIWS as a necessity as an opponent can easily send 100 small and relatively slow munitions (think IAI Harpy loitering munitions), and by force of numbers overwhelm your defensive missiles. 

Question.  How many targets do you think two CIWS can engage before you need to reload?  Answer.  Much less than 24 Sea Ceptors can.  Not to mention Sea Ceptors and reach out an touch those munitions while they are loitering.  A CIWS cannot.

I hope the RCN PMO is reviewing exactly how Turkey used them in Armenia as that should provide a decent illustration of where that threat is going to develop.

Reviewing operational requirements is not the PMO's job, that's the RCN Warfare Centre's job.  Also future threat analysis was used over the previous 5 years before design selection to define the requirements for the bidders.  This is why the configuration of the ship is the way it is.  Because of future threats.  Loitering munitions in a task group environment are much much less of a threat than hypersonics for example IMHO.

The way the CSC is configured loitering munitions will be being hit by SM2, ESSM and Sea Ceptor from a whole task group before they get on station.  Even the 127mm can probably hit them.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Question.  How many targets do you think two CIWS can engage before you need to reload?  Answer.  Much less than 24 Sea Ceptors can.  Not to mention Sea Ceptors and reach out an touch those munitions while they are loitering.  A CIWS cannot.

Reviewing operational requirements is not the PMO's job, that's the RCN Warfare Centre's job.  Also future threat analysis was used over the previous 5 years before design selection to define the requirements for the bidders.  This is why the configuration of the ship is the way it is.  Because of future threats.  Loitering munitions in a task group environment are much much less of a threat than hypersonics for example IMHO.

The way the CSC is configured loitering munitions will be being hit by SM2, ESSM and Sea Ceptor from a whole task group before they get on station.  Even the 127mm can probably hit them.

And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.

 

[AlexanderM]

And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.

Going by memory here, but I do seem to remember that in the design there is the ability to add lasers later on. I do believe this came up once before, quite some time ago.

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/10/dew-system-for-canadas-csc-frigates/

 

[MTShaw]

And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.

I will add the DS30M cannons on the Type 23 can mount 5-7 “Martlet” Missiles. They’re apparently effective for fast boats.

 

[Underway]

And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.

If the footprint of that gun took away from having the missiles in the first place or took away topside space for ECM or other electronics (Which a Millennium Gun definitely will on the CSC)... yes.  It would be very unwise IMHO. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Agreed, there’s only so much deck real estate. It would be nice if they could address that 200 rounds on the 30mm.  Even on the Phalanx everybody knows the guns will do their job once for sure and if you’re lucky and have time, twice.

 

[AlexanderM]

Just wanted to mention that the Kongsberg anti-ship missile is compatible with the MK41 VLS, it can and has been fired from a ship. So it is an option, would clear up deck space, then the problem is that the 32 cells fill up quickly so I expect it will stay in the separate launchers. The wild card then might be if we do develop a booster for the ESSM which could then provide additional options.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-pilots-love-naval-strike-missile-113991

 

[Pelorus]

The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.

A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is usually a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.

Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.

Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.

 

[Furniture]

The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.

A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is usually a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.

Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.

Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.

Ships will always have a disadvantage against shore batteries, it has been that way since the dawn of projectile weapons. Lasers and other gadgets will never make up for it, because as lasers get more effective, more effective shore based weapons will be developed. The CSC needs to be able to fight other ships, and put up a reasonable defense against peer/near-peer enemies on shore.

Also, the CSC is not designed to fight alone in a "hot" war. It will be part of a TG with layered defenses, so the missiles/lasers/plasma rifles in the 40w range, etc. on the CSC aren't likely to be the first layer of defense any threat encounters.

 

[AlexanderM]

The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.

A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is usually a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.

Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.

Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.

This was previously posted on this page.

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/10/dew-system-for-canadas-csc-frigates/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would love to walk through this!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/article/csc-celebrates-first-visualization-suite-opening-in-ottawa?fbclid=IwAR0QlpcR9Nr9rIBQUDlta1YnSvH8x7KouCGMg5w9gfl21rd-4WjkWwuU6wk

The visualization technology will transform the way warships are designed, built and delivered for the Royal Canadian Navy.  Using the technology to create a virtual prototype and “Digital Twin” enables a deep understanding of the vessel and the experience of those serving on board before manufacturing begins.

The technology allows a fully detailed view of the ship’s design from any angle or area with the ability to inspect and examine equipment and systems quickly and easily, a key benefit in maturing and ensuring design, and in supporting the program’s prime contractor, Irving Shipbuilding, as it plans for build.  Our engineers are able to mature design across countries and time zones, working together with our partners and customer to create the right ship for Canada.

 

[Underway]

I would love to walk through this!

Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years... 

 

[CBH99]

Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years... 

You optimist you 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years... 

I am going to call you on that, but the beer/drinks will definitely be on me.  8)