Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 343259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1300 on: October 31, 2018, 13:55:33 »
For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.

Was typing a reply similar to this, but YZT just popped this up...so...^This!

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 609
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1301 on: October 31, 2018, 16:46:39 »
For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.

Because the supply chain is based in Canada. The cost of redesign is pretty low (in the grand scheme) and will also save some weight/material costs to install (220 runs on larger gauge wire, breakers cost more etc). You don't need to change the cable runs or anything, you just change the breaker specs, some details on the domestic power generation (transformers etc) and off you go. If they were smart, they may have already done that as part of the design for export phase, but it's the kind of thing a junior EE could do.

If you don't do that, every single thing you plug into an outlet becomes special order (without a transformer/power inverter).  So aside from the fitted ships equipment, like washer/dryers, fridges, tvs, that would include any electronic equipment the crew brings on. It would be an absolute nightmare for the supply chain, cost a fortune, and be a huge QOL issue for the crew.  Also, you'd have a huge number of adapters plugged in which would be a safety issue and draw a whack of extra power.

Seems like a minor thing that shouldn't be complained about, but remember this is people's home. Imagine having to live on base, but having all the plugs in the shacks have weird plugs that don't let you plug any of your stuff into, and then live there for months at a time without being able to leave. 

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1302 on: October 31, 2018, 16:56:10 »
Because the supply chain is based in Canada. The cost of redesign is pretty low (in the grand scheme) and will also save some weight/material costs to install (220 runs on larger gauge wire, breakers cost more etc). You don't need to change the cable runs or anything, you just change the breaker specs, some details on the domestic power generation (transformers etc) and off you go.

???

Ummmmm...

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,325
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1303 on: October 31, 2018, 17:12:01 »
Seems like a minor thing that shouldn't be complained about, but remember this is people's home. Imagine having to live on base, but having all the plugs in the shacks have weird plugs that don't let you plug any of your stuff into, and then live there for months at a time without being able to leave.
Sounds like one of my tours and something everyone posted outside of North America faces...
Edit to add: Come to think of it, all I needed for my personal entertainment electronics was a plug adapter instead of a full blown power converter as the systems' power supplies were already designed to handle the difference.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 17:15:27 by garb811 »

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 22,487
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 323
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1304 on: October 31, 2018, 17:46:36 »
Sounds like one of my tours and something everyone posted outside of North America faces...
Edit to add: Come to think of it, all I needed for my personal entertainment electronics was a plug adapter instead of a full blown power converter as the systems' power supplies were already designed to handle the difference.

So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance. ;)

Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA.

It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 609
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1305 on: October 31, 2018, 17:56:43 »
A plug adapter was fine for a laptop, sitting at a desk, but doesn't work for anything else with bigger draws or doesn't have it's own power supply.

NATO standard power is 450 V 60 Hz, so all you normally need to do for domestic power is step it down to 220/110V.  There are a few ways to get 50 Hz for the domestic side, but it adds in extra steps with some extra gear, and KISS makes a huge difference over a long time frame for costs (like a 40 year time).

Like I said, they probably already had that figured out when they designed the Type 26, and is a pretty easy change that was probably part of the proposal requirements anyway.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,325
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1306 on: October 31, 2018, 17:58:23 »
So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance. ;)

Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA.

It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.
You obviously haven't talked to anyone in one of the 3rd Bns, they tell themselves to leave the tents behind so don't need a sailor to do that for them.  :whistle:

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 154,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,979
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1307 on: October 31, 2018, 18:08:48 »
I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.

What's a tent?

 :D
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1308 on: November 01, 2018, 08:28:05 »
Hull itself won't change;
BAE claims that the Type 26 has a top speed of 26+ knots.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship


FrontLIne Defence appears to be suggesting something different for the Canadian variant.
Quote
Current plans state a top ship speed of 28+ knots
https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5a/10488-TEAM-LOCKHEED
If the hull will not change, then power must be increased.  Because where is this extra two knots coming from?

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1309 on: November 01, 2018, 08:57:05 »
Why can a WW2 battleship go 35 knots, but a state of the art modern ASW frigate can't go more than 26 (or 28)? I mean, even the CPFs can go 30+ knots, why are we going backwards?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 193
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1310 on: November 01, 2018, 16:18:26 »
The RN, RAN & RCN versions of the Type 26 will all have different Radars, Sonars , Fire control, Combat Management System ,Weapons and hence have different power requirements. They also have different engines. The Brits have RR gas turbines and mtu diesels while the Aussies call for GE turbines and god knows what Canada will get. It is really confusing as several different source sites quote different speeds & tonnages for the type 26 . I guess we are just going to wait for the Canadian contract award to find out what exactly our contract specifies and how it compares to other national types.

Cheers

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1311 on: November 01, 2018, 18:13:49 »
Just curious. Where have you seen that the Aussie Type 26 will have GE GTs? I've only ever seen any of the variants (UK, AUS, and CAN) described as having RR MT30s. Other than commonality with existing ships (which is quite important, granted) I don't see why they would take the technical risk to integrate a different engine. The latest and greatest version of the LM2500 (the +G4) is still less powerful than the MT30, at 35MW, vice 36MW (48,000 HP) for the MT30 on the UK T26. There is also a 40MW (53,333 HP) version of the MT30. Perhaps this is what the AUS and CAN versions will come with, which might explain the speed discrepancies between the different variants (26 Kn for UK, 27 Kn for AUS Hunter Class, and 28+ for the CSC)

https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1312 on: November 01, 2018, 19:16:38 »
Just curious. Where have you seen that the Aussie Type 26 will have GE GTs? I've only ever seen any of the variants (UK, AUS, and CAN) described as having RR MT30s. Other than commonality with existing ships (which is quite important, granted) I don't see why they would take the technical risk to integrate a different engine. The latest and greatest version of the LM2500 (the +G4) is still less powerful than the MT30, at 35MW, vice 36MW (48,000 HP) for the MT30 on the UK T26. There is also a 40MW (53,333 HP) version of the MT30. Perhaps this is what the AUS and CAN versions will come with, which might explain the speed discrepancies between the different variants (26 Kn for UK, 27 Kn for AUS Hunter Class, and 28+ for the CSC)

https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf

Pleased correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t there a RR marine engine plant here in Canada? Peterborough, maybe? If so, wouldn’t it make sense just to stick with the MT30?

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1313 on: November 01, 2018, 21:30:35 »
Why can a WW2 battleship go 35 knots, but a state of the art modern ASW frigate can't go more than 26 (or 28)? I mean, even the CPFs can go 30+ knots, why are we going backwards?
The answer is complex.  But here are a few things to keep in mind.  A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower. 

A high-powered engine tends to be relatively inefficient at low cruising power and thus affects endurance.  After 1945, Western naval doctrine required escorts to be able to make relatively high speeds in very rough water. This means heavier hull construction and increased freeboard, which increased hull weight and thus requires more power.  Sonar is less effective above about 20 or 25 knots. 

In anti-submarine warfare, long-range weapons have decreased the value of fast tactical speeds.  The emphasis is now on maintaining slower top speeds in rough seas rather than maintaining higher top speeds in very calm seas.  So while modern frigates and destroyers appear slower than their counterparts before 1946, they are actually—in real-world usage—faster.

Offline Greene

  • Guest
  • *
  • 10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1314 on: November 02, 2018, 02:10:45 »
Hi all, This is my first post but I've been reading the forums for a long time.

It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?

Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 70
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1315 on: November 02, 2018, 05:37:57 »
Hi all, This is my first post but I've been reading the forums for a long time.

It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?

Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada

For the RAN the combat system will be Aegis, with SAAB developing an interface layer between that and non-Aegis "native" sensors and weapons like the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radars.  It probably leverages off work they did to integrate earlier versions of CEAFAR, MU-90 etc into the 9LV CMS.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1316 on: November 07, 2018, 12:11:51 »
Why wait until IndoDefence 2018 to release this, and not submit this for CSC?



https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html


Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.
Quote

Omega frigate /  FFI early specifications:
Length: 144 meters
Breadth: 18.8 meters
Displacement: 6100 tons
Max. speed: 29 knots
Range: 5,000 nautical miles @ 18 knots
Endurance: 30 days at sea
Stabilisation: Rudder roll (similar to LCF)
Crew: 122 sailors (accommodations for up to 160)
Storage space for 3x 12 meters RHIBs
Hangar space for 2x medium lift helicopters and/or UAV.



Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1317 on: November 07, 2018, 12:21:41 »
No metal cut for it, let alone a proven design.  ???

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1318 on: November 07, 2018, 14:09:14 »
probably these will replace the M-class frigate. :D
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1319 on: November 07, 2018, 17:44:55 »
No metal cut for it, let alone a proven design.  ???

Not entirely new

Damen explained to us that the Omega / FFI frigate is based on the proven LCF / De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate hull form. The vessel features an hybrid propulsion system consisting of 4x diesel engines (two can be used for economic speed, four for sprint) plus 2x electric engines. The diesel engines are separated forward and aft for increased survivability. Power generation aboard the ship takes into account future weapon systems such as directed energy weapons.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 446
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1320 on: November 08, 2018, 10:54:26 »
Why wait until IndoDefence 2018 to release this, and not submit this for CSC?



https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html


Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.
You'd think the fact that it's based on an existing hull would have made it a design which could have been submitted.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1321 on: November 08, 2018, 12:24:58 »
I wonder if any damage control lessons from the latest Norwegian Frigate collision will be added to the design criteria? 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,464
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1322 on: November 09, 2018, 08:12:32 »
What lesson would that be, Colin?

"Don't be tied alongside when tug boats maneuver large merchant ships in the Harbour?"

HMCS Winnipeg already learned that one for us all.  :whistle:

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1323 on: November 09, 2018, 12:08:04 »
I was thinking about how the crew responded, is the crew numbers enough, did their drills and equipment work as intended? Did any of the design assumptions contribute to the flooding or did they work as intended?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1324 on: November 09, 2018, 17:16:00 »
I'm thinking that no matter how many systems and bodies you have in place it doesn't really matter.

Just as any tank can be destroyed with a big enough mine so any ship can be sunk with a big enough hole.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"