Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[KevinB]

Depending on what ammunition options the RCN purchases, the 5"/64 OTO-Melara has ample capability to destroy drones at a reasonable/long range and with good rate of fire. The USN has been using KE-ET 5" ammo to destroy drones in the Red Sea apparently as most of them are fairly flimsy and slow.

I’m not sure I’d want to use a 5” against a bunch of drones. The 35mm SkyGuardian types are a bit better for engaging multiples, and better yet many SkyGuardian setups

 

[Lumber]

It's interesting that in land warfare people understand that not every vehicle needs to be/should be a tank, but in naval warfare people want every ship to be a battleship/heavy cruiser.

Canada can not afford to buy, and maintain a fleet of modern heavy cruisers (96+ VLS cell ships). The CSC needs to be big and mean enough to make the enemy think the juice isn't worth the squeeze when it's alone, and be able to work with allied ships as part of a TG. Adding 64 more VLS to the CSC would just make it less versatile, and far more expensive.

If Canada/the RCN wants a missile cruiser, buy dedicated ones. They can sit in port most of the time like the capital ships of yore, while the CSCs do the yeoman's work of the navy.

I'm going to assume you are simply being persnickety and know that a 96 VLS ship is not considered a heavy cruiser, but regarding the highlighted bit, there is a serious movement within the RCN to pivot from being very Euro/NATO/SNMG1-2 focused, and instead be very USN focused. It stems from the CSC having AEGIS, and it going to mean significant changes to the trade structures, training plans, and the names of the positions aboard ship, all in the vein of better aligning with Aegis and how the USN does business. The stated goal is for a CSC to be able to slot into a USN task group and take the place of an Arleigh Burke.

It's going to be hard to convince a CSG commander to treat a CSC just like one of his destroyer escorts if CSC only has 32 cell, IMO.

 

[Furniture]

I'm going to assume you are simply being persnickety and know that a 96 VLS ship is not considered a heavy cruiser, but regarding the highlighted bit, there is a serious movement within the RCN to pivot from being very Euro/NATO/SNMG1-2 focused, and instead be very USN focused. It stems from the CSC having AEGIS, and it going to mean significant changes to the trade structures, training plans, and the names of the positions aboard ship, all in the vein of better aligning with Aegis and how the USN does business. The stated goal is for a CSC to be able to slot into a USN task group and take the place of an Arleigh Burke.

It's going to be hard to convince a CSG commander to treat a CSC just like one of his destroyer escorts if CSC only has 32 cell, IMO.

Heavy cruiser doesn't really exist as a type anymore, so yes I am aware it's not a "heavy cruiser". That said, a 96 VLS 9,000 ton "destroyer" isn't really a destroyer either... Ship types are mostly anachronistic names these days, with CPFs acting more like interwar light cruisers than destroyers or escorts.

All that aside, the CSC is unlikely to replace an AB, more likely they will augment a CSG as an extra escort. Providing more tracking and engagement options, while also representing a multinational coalition. The USN doesn't need any of our planned 15 CSCs, to do any of the things the USN wants/needs to do. If we are riding along, it's for the utility we bring with weapons/sensors, but primarily because we show that the USA isn't just doing whatever they want unilaterally, they have the "free world" on their side.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I’m not sure I’d want to use a 5” against a bunch of drones. The 35mm SkyGuardian types are a bit better for engaging multiples, and better yet many SkyGuardian setups

Autocannon systems like 35mm Millennium Guns or SkyGuardian do not have the range to provide standoff against drones, they usually have a range between 3.5km - 5km (effective range is less) while something like the the US 5"/62 or the CSC's 5"/64 can reach out into the 20km+ range as a baseline with standard ammo. Those systems are more suited to being placed as shorter range band defenses. Special purpose ammo can reach much, much further although can be mission specific and not suitable for all roles. The OTO-Melara mount being planned for CSC has a fairly high rate of fire (32 rpm) alongside quite an interesting ready drum magazine system. As I stated, the USN has been currently using their less capable 5" system for blasting down drones from range. CSC's system is slated to be even more effective if we invest in proper ammunition types.

From Navweaps

The LW (for "Light Weight") mounting uses four modular automatic feeding drum magazines, each holding 14 rounds. This permits firing up to four different and immediately selectable types of ammunition. The magazines can be reloaded while the gun is firing. Projectiles and propelling charges are hoisted separately to the gun level from below-deck feeding magazines. There is a composition station below the gun where the next round to be fired is selected just before it is taken up by the gun automatic loading system. Unfired rounds can be recycled back to the loading drums.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I keep seeing where 32 cell VLS is being referenced with regards to CSC in this thread. Unless something has changed, I believe the count is 24 plus the 24 ExLs for CAMM. That’s what I understand to be the first flight, anyway. Even CRCN has stated several times that this is not enough cells for what they envisage the vessel may need to contend with. I wonder if there’s a way to have at least 32 (if not 40 or more) and retain the mission bay by selecting a lesser calibre main gun, possibly a 76 that still retains VULCANO capability?

 

[Swampbuggy]

I keep seeing where 32 cell VLS is being referenced with regards to CSC in this thread. Unless something has changed, I believe the count is 24 plus the 24 ExLs for CAMM. That’s what I understand to be the first flight, anyway. Even CRCN has stated several times that this is not enough cells for what they envisage the vessel may need to contend with. I wonder if there’s a way to have at least 32 (if not 40 or more) and retain the mission bay by selecting a lesser calibre main gun, possibly a 76 that still retains VULCANO capability?

Actually, I wrote that incorrectly. What I should have said was 6 ExLS for 24 CAMM (quad packed) though, those launchers can be used for several other types of weapon too, I believe.

 

[KevinB]

Autocannon systems like 35mm Millennium Guns or SkyGuardian do not have the range to provide standoff against drones, they usually have a range between 3.5km - 5km (effective range is less) while something like the the US 5"/62 or the CSC's 5"/64 can reach out into the 20km+ range as a baseline with standard ammo. Those systems are more suited to being placed as shorter range band defenses. Special purpose ammo can reach much, much further although can be mission specific and not suitable for all roles. The OTO-Melara mount being planned for CSC has a fairly high rate of fire (32 rpm) alongside quite an interesting ready drum magazine system. As I stated, the USN has been currently using their less capable 5" system for blasting down drones from range. CSC's system is slated to be even more effective if we invest in proper ammunition types.

From Navweaps

I’m talking about drone swarms at point defense. Not about individual crossing targets.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm going to assume you are simply being persnickety and know that a 96 VLS ship is not considered a heavy cruiser, but regarding the highlighted bit, there is a serious movement within the RCN to pivot from being very Euro/NATO/SNMG1-2 focused, and instead be very USN focused. It stems from the CSC having AEGIS, and it going to mean significant changes to the trade structures, training plans, and the names of the positions aboard ship, all in the vein of better aligning with Aegis and how the USN does business. The stated goal is for a CSC to be able to slot into a USN task group and take the place of an Arleigh Burke.

It's going to be hard to convince a CSG commander to treat a CSC just like one of his destroyer escorts if CSC only has 32 cell, IMO.

This makes complete sense and should have been done years ago. It just makes sense. I have to imagine its an ingrained anti-Americanism that exists in our political class that keeps us from doing this.

The days of the RCN simply being a branch of the RN are over, long ago. And we need accept that the Americans are good people, they are our neighbors, and friends, and who we should be able to seamlessly integrate with; be it Ops, Logistics, whatever.

 

[Kirkhill]

RCAF subordinated to NORAD.
RCN subordinated to USN.
CA subordinated to NORTHCOM? Or the USMC?

It is not anti-American to be pro-Canadian.

 

[Furniture]

RCAF subordinated to NORAD.
RCN subordinated to USN.
CA subordinated to NORTHCOM? Or the USMC?

It is not anti-American to be pro-Canadian.

Yes and no.

There are times elements of each operates under the control of American or other international organizations, but they are not always subordinated to those organizations.

In the RCAF world the Tac Hel Sqns have essentially zero to do with NORAD, and apart from TG EXs the RCN units do not normally operate under direct USN command.

 

[GR66]

RCAF subordinated to NORAD.
RCN subordinated to USN.
CA subordinated to NORTHCOM? Or the USMC?

It is not anti-American to be pro-Canadian.

Personally I'd have no issues with NORAD (NORth american Aerospace Defense Command) morphing into NORAD (NORth American Defense Command) with the RCAF/RCN/CA all interoperating with the USAF/USN/NORTHCOM/USSF in the collective defence of North America in all domains.

In the end the US as the greatest military power on the planet is going to do what it takes to defend itself even if it might require operating in Canadian territory. Better to be at the table making the decisions together than sitting on the outside looking in.

 

[Lumber]

This makes complete sense and should have been done years ago. It just makes sense. I have to imagine its an ingrained anti-Americanism that exists in our political class that keeps us from doing this.

The days of the RCN simply being a branch of the RN are over, long ago. And we need accept that the Americans are good people, they are our neighbors, and friends, and who we should be able to seamlessly integrate with; be it Ops, Logistics, whatever.

There are good reasons to stick with the non-US NATO centric posture, and it has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism".

NATO navies primarily use NATO doctrine; the USN primarily uses US doctrine.
The USN is accustomed to working in completely American task groups; NATO navies are accustomed to working in task group made up of disparate navies.
The USN dedicates whole platforms and fleets to specific warfare areas; NATO navies build general purpose ships that can each do every area of warfare to some extant.

 

[Cloud Cover]

“The OTO-Melara mount being planned for CSC has a fairly high rate of fire (32 rpm) alongside quite an interesting ready drum magazine system.”

Interesting. That’s a lot of shear pins, gaskets, rings and micro switches to replace after 45 seconds of firing.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is a price to be paid for conforming to the US. A price both organizational and financial.

The money absorbed conforming to US standards means money not available to the rest of the force and gaps left in other areas.

Converting the CSCs to AEGIS from the Canadian system used by the Danes. That cost money. Some of that money could have gone to an effective GBAD system and local CUAS and security for domestic airfields manned by Class B reserves.

 

[Cloud Cover]

OTOH the US is our principal “fighting ally” and for what it’s worth, should probably be our only such ally when the CAF deploys.

 

[lenaitch]

Personally I'd have no issues with NORAD (NORth american Aerospace Defense Command) morphing into NORAD (NORth American Defense Command) with the RCAF/RCN/CA all interoperating with the USAF/USN/NORTHCOM/USSF in the collective defence of North America in all domains.

In the end the US as the greatest military power on the planet is going to do what it takes to defend itself even if it might require operating in Canadian territory. Better to be at the table making the decisions together than sitting on the outside looking in.

You ok with the US operating on Canadian soil?

 

[DBNSG]

You ok with the US operating on Canadian soil?

The US already operates over Canada. The two B-1's that thumped the Houthi's refuelled over Nova Scotia today

 

[Navy_Pete]

Depending on what ammunition options the RCN purchases, the 5"/64 OTO-Melara has ample capability to destroy drones at a reasonable/long range and with good rate of fire. The USN has been using KE-ET 5" ammo to destroy drones in the Red Sea apparently as most of them are fairly flimsy and slow.

My personal observations was that slow moving targets are surprisingly hard to hit from a slow moving platform that is rocking back and forth when all your targeting systems aren't meant for that purpose. THe manual targeting is like a really terrible version of the worlds worst first person shooter game.

And if you hit the boat drones, they are surprisingly durable, and will still float despite burning to the waterline.

 

[suffolkowner]

I’m talking about drone swarms at point defense. Not about individual crossing targets.

the two 30mm good enough?

 

[KevinB]

the two 30mm good enough?

I’d prefer 4-6 35mm

As well as DE systems on top of that.