Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Spencer100]

I did not know that the NSM was MK41 compatible. There is something satisfying about the 1000lb warhead of the also stealthy LRASM

If the current government’s intentions of joining the ABM family are true then we’d need the SM-6 at least.

I also think we are getting our arms twisted.

Arms being twisted....US navy Admiral to RCN Admiral....we think you guys should have ABM capability....RCN Admiral thinking we need a ship built this century.

 

[Lumber]

I did not know that the NSM was MK41 compatible. There is something satisfying about the 1000lb warhead of the also stealthy LRASM

If the current government’s intentions of joining the ABM family are true then we’d need the SM-6 at least.

I also think we are getting our arms twisted.

Actually I could be wrong on this. It's the "JSM" that they fired from a Mk41. I just assumed NSM was just the Kongsberg name for the ship-launched JSM, but it turns out their frames are slightly different. So, a JSM can be fired from a VLS, but the NSM has not been tested to do so.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And...yes, there have been females (or at least people who identify as such) that have passed the machinist specialist course.

I have met some pretty damm fine female machinists, in fact those that are interested in that work are generally very, very good at it and very creative.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Best ACS techs (who are the RCAF version of machinists) I have ever met are all female. That may be a small sample size, but still…

 

[Underway]

Actually I could be wrong on this. It's the "JSM" that they fired from a Mk41. I just assumed NSM was just the Kongsberg name for the ship-launched JSM, but it turns out their frames are slightly different. So, a JSM can be fired from a VLS, but the NSM has not been tested to do so.

They are working on an vertlaunch NSM but it needs a booster because of the vertical vs angled launch requires more fuel basically. AFAIK the land attack missiles are way down the line for CSC ordinance priority. Its all about the ESSM2, SM2 family and CAMM. NSM is basically a bolt on system and no one seems worried that's going to work properly.

 

[Lumber]

Yes, land attack rightly should be lowest priority. Canada is far too risk averse to actually get into that game, IMO.

 

[NavyShooter]

Based on my experience in Libya - I wholeheartedly concur.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Good primer on the Type 26 with a good look at the propulsion system.

 

[Underway]

Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.

Few things I didn't know. Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.

Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier. Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further. I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through. Adds a lot of weight.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through. Adds a lot of weight.

You think that such a solution would be self evident, but then we only amateurs at this ship building stuff, right?

 

[Dana381]

Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.

Few things I didn't know. Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.

Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier. Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further. I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through. Adds a lot of weight.

A plumber told me he only uses copper pipe on government buildings. Tha architect always specs copper on government buildings because it costs more and their fee is based on the total building cost. The more expensive the building the more the architect makes.

 

[Underway]

You think that such a solution would be self evident, but then we only amateurs at this ship building stuff, right?

Part of the problem is that ISI are new at this ship designing thing and BAE are old hats. BAE checks all of ISI's work as they are the primary for the ship design. There are some decisions made that I'm sure have BAE scratching or shaking their heads.

Cost, time all that is factored in. Part of me wishes we took the Type 26 exactly as is for our design, but that wasn't what the requirements said. So here we are. It's going to be amazing when we get them in the water, just the cost will be mind blowing.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.

Few things I didn't know. Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.

Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier. Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further. I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through. Adds a lot of weight.

You'd lose that one!

Things like composite/non-steel masts are complicated, as you need to do a fair bit of design work to figure out if it's feasible and what the potential combat/through life impacts might be.

BAE is really good though, nice to work with people that have experience and know what they are doing.

 

[Underway]

You'd lose that one!

Things like composite/non-steel masts are complicated, as you need to do a fair bit of design work to figure out if it's feasible and what the potential combat/through life impacts might be.

BAE is really good though, nice to work with people that have experience and know what they are doing.

I'm glad to hear that. Some of the horror stories I've gotten from the Nav Arch side of the house regarding ISI are irritating. Not that we didn't make our own errors in JSS. But there are also some happy little accidents. Like 12mm steel hull makes for decent ballistic protection around the magazines against small arms from range. Wasn't part of the plan just worked out well that way.

 

[Maxman1]

BAE just unveiled a destroyer version of the Hunter class version of the Type 26 with up to 150 Mk 41 cells.

Source is here, behind a paywall.

The most lethal warship in Australia’s history would be built to greatly boost the navy’s firepower in response to a rising China, under a proposal being examined by the Albanese government.

The plan by BAE Systems Australia would spark a major shake-up in the navy’s future fleet, where BAE would build both heavily armed destroyers as well as anti-submarine frigates at its Osborne facility near Adelaide.

The proposed new air warfare destroyers would carry between 100 and 150 missile cells, making them one of the world’s most heavily armed warships, with more than twice the firepower of Australia’s existing three air warfare destroyers.

BAE has briefed senior navy officials and the government on its proposal, which is aimed at answering the government push for more firepower at a time of growing strategic tensions with China.

However, BAE’s plan has only been formulated in recent months and is not part of the Defence Strategic Review which has recently been delivered to Defence Minister Richard Marles.

Even so, the BAE proposal will be closely examined by Mr Marles as part of a series of naval options that includes a rival $6bn bid by Spanish company Navantia to build more of its Hobart-class AWDs for the navy.

Under existing plans, BAE is building nine anti-submarine Hunter-class frigates at Osborne as part of a $45bn program that would deliver the first ship in 2031 and the final ship in 2045.

Under BAE’s new proposal, it would build the first three Hunter-class frigates and then, in 2035, it would build its first air warfare destroyer.

The company would then build, alternately every two years, another frigate and then another destroyer until nine ships in total were built – six frigates and three destroyers – although final numbers and configuration would be up to the government.

BAE has told the navy that both the frigates and the destroyers would use the same hull design and therefore more than 80 per cent of the two ships would be a common design.

This would allow them to be built by the same workforce and at the same Osborne shipyard at a similar budget and schedule to the original $45bn plan for nine Hunter frigates.

‘The world is fragile’: Marles says we are facing ‘significant moment’ in history Defence Minister Richard Marles says we are facing a “significant moment” in our history. “The world is fragile,” he told Sky News ... more ‘The world is fragile’: Marles says we are facing ‘significant moment’ in history A BAE spokesperson declined to comment about the proposal. A spokesperson for Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said the government “won’t be pre-empting the findings of the defence strategic review, which will be considered by the government early this year”.

The yet-to-be-built Hunter-class frigates, based on the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship, were chosen by the Turnbull government in 2018 to specialise in anti-submarine warfare at a time when China’s submarine fleet is expanding rapidly. But the Hunter-class frigates are relatively lightly armed with only 32 missile cells, compared with 48 on the navy’s existing AWDs and 96 cells on the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Some experts, including former navy chief vice-admiral David Shackleton, have argued that nine Hunter-Class frigates would leave the navy too lightly armed for future conflicts.

Vice Admiral Shackleton warned last week that the navy had had a 43 per cent drop in firepower since 1995. An AWD armed with up to 150 cells would represent a quantum leap in naval firepower, more than most other major surface combatants around the world, including most Chinese naval ships.

The Albanese government faces the biggest defence decisions in a generation next month when it responds to both the defence strategic review – authored by former defence Minister Stephen Smith and former defence chief Angus Houston – as well as the report by the nuclear powered submarine taskforce.

Nation has a ‘capable’ defence force, says Marles Defence Minister Richard Marles says Australians should have a “sense of confidence” about the nation’s “capable” defence force. “It’s not a ... more Nation has a ‘capable’ defence force, says Marles The decisions it makes on the structure of the navy, army and air force and in particular its choices on the surface fleet and nuclear submarines will have an impact on national security for decades.

Mr Marles has already flagged that he wants a future defence force that can deliver a more “impactful projection” and can “hold an adversary at risk much further from our shores”.

The Hunter-class frigate program has had a troubled start, but the Albanese government has said it remains committed to it. In August last year, the navy and BAE Systems agreed to an 18-month delay to the start of the project partly because of the immature design of the parent ship, Britain’s Type-26 frigate. Designers also struggled with the fact that the Australian boat was heavier than expected after navy-requested modifications were incorporated, including the US combat system and Australian-made radar.

BAE Systems Australia managing director Craig Lockhart said in December he expected the shipbuilder could quickly claw back the 18-month delay on the project, possibly by as early as June.

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia has told the government that it could build three new Hobart-class AWDs, in addition to the three currently in service, for a total of $6bn and deliver them by 2030, before the first Hunter frigate is built

 

[Underway]

I don't think that's an image of the destroyer version. The only way on that hull you could do a destroyer with that number of missiles would be to take out the 125mm main gun add another few rows of missiles. Then use the option of shrinking the flight deck size to only accomodate smaller helos, adding missiles aft to balance the weight added forward with more missiles. Keep some self defence launching silos in the middle, essentially you get three locations for launches.

It also depends on what silo they are refering to. Sea Ceptor silos are not very large and you can fit about 48 of them in the space of 24 Mk41 VLS. The current ship configuration could accomodate 96 Sea Ceptor silos easily. But that's not an increase in AAW power, just a realignment of possible loadouts.

 

[Dana381]

The MK41 VLS is really cool but is limited by its difficulty in reloading. Someone should design a reloading system from underneath. If a ship had 12 cells that could be reloaded underway and an internal store of spare missiles of the types fired by the MK41 would that not be more valuable then 150 MK41's that can only be reloaded in port? I understand that at 26 ft long the cells would have to be mounted higher in the ship than they are now but being as you would only need a few cells the weight should be doable.

I envision a storage system under deck where the missiles are stored vertically and moved on tracks to the cells. Then raised into the bottom of the cell to be fired. You could even remove a missile from the cell in order to load a different type in case the threat changed from an air threat to a surface threat. You could potentially carry a lot of missiles while using little deck space.

I know missiles are crazy expensive carrying that many would be undoable for many nations but I'm just spitballing here and realize if it was easy than Lockheed or someone would have already done it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The MK41 VLS is really cool but is limited by its difficulty in reloading. Someone should design a reloading system from underneath. If a ship had 12 cells that could be reloaded underway and an internal store of spare missiles of the types fired by the MK41 would that not be more valuable then 150 MK41's that can only be reloaded in port? I understand that at 26 ft long the cells would have to be mounted higher in the ship than they are now but being as you would only need a few cells the weight should be doable.

I envision a storage system under deck where the missiles are stored vertically and moved on tracks to the cells. Then raised into the bottom of the cell to be fired. You could even remove a missile from the cell in order to load a different type in case the threat changed from an air threat to a surface threat. You could potentially carry a lot of missiles while using little deck space.

I know missiles are crazy expensive carrying that many would be undoable for many nations but I'm just spitballing here and realize if it was easy than Lockheed or someone would have already done it.

So, that is not how a mk41 VLS works…

Plus, even if that was how it worked, the ship would have to be a minimum of 70 feet tall in that area, just to make all that work, let alone leave room for all the other bits and pieces a ship needs to run itself. It would be a design and stability nightmare.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Early missile carrying ships worked that way, mainly as each missile was bigger and chunky. County-class destroyer - Wikipedia

 

[Maxman1]

I think trying to cram that many cells in the finished design is too much, and they should design a new hull.