Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

Been hearing on some other forums that the VDS was cut, is that true? I would say no but nothing surprises me.

It would really shock me if they did that but didn't replace it with some sort of other towed array.

Above all this is an ASW ship. I think they would drop more above water capability to make better below water capability if push came to shove.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I've seen the same chatter, I am 99% sure that people didn't see the VDS specifically spelled out on the fact sheet and immediately went into panic mode. The Ultra TFLAS should include the VDS in its overall package, hence it not being listed specifically. They would not cut VDS from a design largely based around ASW work, that is nonsensical even for the Canadian Govt.

Is this the same ASW platform that we are modifying to do a lot more AAW and BMD, which has a very different operational focus and CONOPs?

I think ASW surface ships only really make sense paired with SSKs now; subs have much longer attack and detection range, and with underwater launched AAW missiles and ASuW missiles even helos don't buy you much breathing room or range buffer.

May as well keep the equipment on there, but there are only so many bunks onboard with very little room for special teams, so not sure we'd have enough people to run it all at the same time (maybe a very short term standing to).

 

[Underway]

The modern RCN task group concept (doctrine) does include an attached SSK and MPA. That doesn't eliminte the value of having proper ASW equipment onboard to provide the middle defensive layer behind those outter rings. And given your point about submarine launched missiles more AAW is probably a good choice (though most submariners I know hate using them as it just gives the enemy a perfect datum).

ASW equipment isn't there just to protect our own ship is missing the point. Its also there to protect the ships behind us (HVU, other TG with CV in it, etc...), by creating a no go bubble of sensors. And it's also there to give us early enough warning of a torpedo attack so we can take defensive action (instead of just Royal Oak it).

 

[calculus]

Write up in the UK-centric Navy Lookout:

A guide to the future Canadian Surface Combatant – the River-class destroyers | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Nothing new that hasn't been discussed here, but interesting nevertheless to see it all in one place.

 

[calculus]

An interesting statement in the article is "The fixed arrays are much lighter than the Australian CEFAR radar which has caused top weight issues with the Hunter...". If that's true, I have to wonder how the Australians were able to accommodate 32 Mk41 VLS on their design, but we were not, despite the SPY 7 apparently being much lighter. I have no doubt, based on the comments from some of the experts on this forum, that weight on the CSC is a concern, but it makes me wonder what kind of compromises the Australians have had to make. It's been rumoured that their GCS variant is heavier than ours (I've seen numbers ranging from 8800 to 10000 tons), and will have a broader beam (by 0.6m), but if that is the case, it suggests a much more involved redesign, so I wonder if they are even as advanced in the design process as we are? This suggests they have achieved a pretty good level of maturity, however.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/feature/hunter

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think Hunter is a bit ahead of CSC, but there are pretty significant internal differences on the 3 classes, and the masts on all 3 will be very different. I imagine they got rid of something inside to fit extra VLS cells without adding length.

Seems like Hunter has a few different phased array radars in different bands but it's not like the SPY 7 is some kind of lightweight radar either; it just may be less massive than more massive setup.

If you stick a 5 lb weight on the end of the broom handle and hold it out at full extension, gives a good idea of how much weight high impacts stability with a really big lever in the form of a mast, and why it has an outsized impact on ship stability. Ballast is 'wasted' weight margin (compared to equipment that provides operational capability), so is why both CSC and Hunter are heavier than T26 in a lot of respects. Note the Hunter Wiki includes both light ship and full operational weights, while the CSC doesn't, so the heavier weight is probably also more honest reporting of true weight when fully booted and spurred. The full operational weight can easily add another 10% displacement in ammunition, liquid ballast, extra people, stores etc.
Hunter-class frigate - Wikipedia

River-class destroyer (2030s) - Wikipedia

 

[KevinB]

. Ballast is 'wasted' weight margin (compared to equipment that provides operational capability)

I’ve always wondered about ballasting ships, as one would think in this day and age, that there would be equipment that one could move lower into the hull.

Non Naval question, would adding a second/third hull layer do anything to help with that issue as opposed to basically what I understand is dead weight being added near the bottom of the hull.

 

[Spencer100]

Write up in the UK-centric Navy Lookout:

A guide to the future Canadian Surface Combatant – the River-class destroyers | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Nothing new that hasn't been discussed here, but interesting nevertheless to see it all in one place.

Hey wait a second! In that piece's infographic a 6 cell Mk41 was dropped in?

 

[Lumber]

Is this the same ASW platform that we are modifying to do a lot more AAW and BMD, which has a very different operational focus and CONOPs?

I think ASW surface ships only really make sense paired with SSKs now; subs have much longer attack and detection range, and with underwater launched AAW missiles and ASuW missiles even helos don't buy you much breathing room or range buffer.

May as well keep the equipment on there, but there are only so many bunks onboard with very little room for special teams, so not sure we'd have enough people to run it all at the same time (maybe a very short term standing to).

Disagree. With most ships now sporting LFA tails (and even LFA hull-mounts), plus helicopters with LFA, plus LFA sonobuoys, plus bi-statics and multi-statics, the advantage is shifting away from submarines and toward the surface fleet.

 

[Lumber]

Hey wait a second! In that piece's infographic a 6 cell Mk41 was dropped in?

Are you talking about behind the funnels/between the NSM launchers? That's the CAMMs launcher; they just haven't removed it from the infographic, for whatever reason. Perhaps the housing will stay there, just empty?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Hey wait a second! In that piece's infographic a 6 cell Mk41 was dropped in?

They mistake 6 cells of Mark 41 for the ExLS cells that were previously fitted in that location prior to the change with RAM in Mark.49 launchers replacing it.

 

[Lumber]

I think Hunter is a bit ahead of CSC, but there are pretty significant internal differences on the 3 classes, and the masts on all 3 will be very different. I imagine they got rid of something inside to fit extra VLS cells without adding length.

Seems like Hunter has a few different phased array radars in different bands but it's not like the SPY 7 is some kind of lightweight radar either; it just may be less massive than more massive setup.

If you stick a 5 lb weight on the end of the broom handle and hold it out at full extension, gives a good idea of how much weight high impacts stability with a really big lever in the form of a mast, and why it has an outsized impact on ship stability. Ballast is 'wasted' weight margin (compared to equipment that provides operational capability), so is why both CSC and Hunter are heavier than T26 in a lot of respects. Note the Hunter Wiki includes both light ship and full operational weights, while the CSC doesn't, so the heavier weight is probably also more honest reporting of true weight when fully booted and spurred. The full operational weight can easily add another 10% displacement in ammunition, liquid ballast, extra people, stores etc.
Hunter-class frigate - Wikipedia

River-class destroyer (2030s) - Wikipedia

I get it, and I'm not a naval architect/engineer, but when I see something like the 4900T Italian Thaon di Revel-class "OPV", which has a two main guns, 16 cell VLS, 8x Anti-ship missiles, and a phased array radar, I just don't understand why an 8000T River-class can't have a few more VLS cells.

Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Navy_Pete]

I get it, and I'm not a naval architect/engineer, but when I see something like the 4900T Italian Thaon di Revel-class "OPV", which has a two main guns, 16 cell VLS, 8x Anti-ship missiles, and a phased array radar, I just don't understand why an 8000T River-class can't have a few more VLS cells.

Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's 6300 T full load, so has almost 1500 tonnes on the CPFs and 280s, and pretty close in size to the T26.

There were tradeoffs somewhere to get that many weapons onboard, but seems like they may have leaned heavily into automation (which costs a fortune to maintain as well with more down time), and may have accepted lower combat recoverability, crew comfort, or other things that have been prioritized over guns and missiles. But slapping the SPY7 up high has definitely been a limiting factor in what you can put where. Sometimes what looks like small changes really means effective major redesigns because everything touches everything, and adding more VLS cells forwards means you need to counter that change to the trim, so effectively redoing things across the entire hull.

It's far away from a MOTs design, and arguably with some of the major changes we might have been better designing a ship from scratch, as we effectively redesigned AOPs, JSS and now CSC.

 

[Spencer100]

I get it, and I'm not a naval architect/engineer, but when I see something like the 4900T Italian Thaon di Revel-class "OPV", which has a two main guns, 16 cell VLS, 8x Anti-ship missiles, and a phased array radar, I just don't understand why an 8000T River-class can't have a few more VLS cells.

Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

as others that have more knowledge but I think the 5000NM v 7000NM range has something to do with. Plus North Atlantic v Med. Then add in RCN (USN and RN) naval construction standards v Italian. (LOL Chevy v Fiat.....lol)

 

[calculus]

Hey wait a second! In that piece's infographic a 6 cell Mk41 was dropped in?

Hey wait a second! In that piece's infographic a 6 cell Mk41 was dropped in?

If you are referring to the picture shown in the tab "focsle silo" in the article, it's a picture of an older model from EuroNaval 2022. Not sure why this was included in the article.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I’ve always wondered about ballasting ships, as one would think in this day and age, that there would be equipment that one could move lower into the hull.

Non Naval question, would adding a second/third hull layer do anything to help with that issue as opposed to basically what I understand is dead weight being added near the bottom of the hull.

The impact of weight is really dependent on distance from the center of gravity, so adding a few tonnes of ballast as low as physically possible has more impact than 10 tonnes closer to the CoG. Density also comes into play, as the big chunks of lead in the bilge are pretty compact, and is in what is basically an unusable area anyway. Equipment takes up more room for the same amount of weight, and you also need access to a lot of it for maintenance.

Additionally, chunks of lead don't care if they get flooded and under a few feet of water; electric pumps, diesels, valves etc do.

All the machinery and hull weight, including the double hull, are taken into account before adding ballast, but it's kind of a necessary evil. Aside from the weight of the radar or weapon systems iteself, the structure, cabling, and any piping is all taken into account as well, so the model is actually really detailed, and goes down into assuming weights for things like people's stuff in their lockers, liquid in piping, etc.

Paper doesn't sound like it weights much but when you forget to include that for a library or office building full of cabinets you end up with structural issues, so all that is also considered. You end up with a lot of weights built into the stability model spread across the entire ship to account for that, and then usually some kind of 'correction weight' gets added in after build and updated periodically when you do stability experiments so that it matches with the actual displacement, trim (bow, stern or netural) and list (port/starboard). The last ship I was on had a random 10 tonne offset somewhere around 2 deck on the port side as a correction factor, but we updated it periodically to match what we were seeing.

Previously on the 280s we had to do stability corrections for when staff officers came onboard, as they quite literally made the ship more top heavy.

 

[Spencer100]

If you are referring to the picture shown in the tab "focsle silo" in the article, it's a picture of an older model from EuroNaval 2022. Not sure why this was included in the article.

it was this one

 

[Swampbuggy]

An interesting statement in the article is "The fixed arrays are much lighter than the Australian CEFAR radar which has caused top weight issues with the Hunter...". If that's true, I have to wonder how the Australians were able to accommodate 32 Mk41 VLS on their design, but we were not, despite the SPY 7 apparently being much lighter. I have no doubt, based on the comments from some of the experts on this forum, that weight on the CSC is a concern, but it makes me wonder what kind of compromises the Australians have had to make. It's been rumoured that their GCS variant is heavier than ours (I've seen numbers ranging from 8800 to 10000 tons), and will have a broader beam (by 0.6m), but if that is the case, it suggests a much more involved redesign, so I wonder if they are even as advanced in the design process as we are? This suggests they have achieved a pretty good level of maturity, however.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/feature/hunter

I find myself wondering about speed and range with the Hunter Class. Surely both specs will be lower than River or T26 given same propulsion, more weight, broader beam but not a proportional lengthening of the hull?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My thoughts as well, although the beam increase might lead to more tankage which would reduce the range effect, but not the speed.

 

[Underway]

An interesting statement in the article is "The fixed arrays are much lighter than the Australian CEFAR radar which has caused top weight issues with the Hunter...". If that's true, I have to wonder how the Australians were able to accommodate 32 Mk41 VLS on their design, but we were not, despite the SPY 7 apparently being much lighter. I have no doubt, based on the comments from some of the experts on this forum, that weight on the CSC is a concern, but it makes me wonder what kind of compromises the Australians have had to make. It's been rumoured that their GCS variant is heavier than ours (I've seen numbers ranging from 8800 to 10000 tons), and will have a broader beam (by 0.6m), but if that is the case, it suggests a much more involved redesign, so I wonder if they are even as advanced in the design process as we are? This suggests they have achieved a pretty good level of maturity, however.

From an article I posted earlier.

the River class destroyers have a radar — considered the heart of the modern warship — located higher up in the vessel than in its Australian and British counterparts. That has required associated power, cooling and other supporting machinery, which add 900 tonnes in weight.

I have heard the CEAFAR itself is relatively light but with all those extra panels and new L band addition perhaps it's gotten heavier. Add that to the space needed for 8 more strike length missiles. Then again no idea where the CEAFAR info came from, so it might be incorrect.

I find myself wondering about speed and range with the Hunter Class. Surely both specs will be lower than River or T26 given same propulsion, more weight, broader beam but not a proportional lengthening of the hull?

River Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 20.75m
Hunter Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 21.4m
City Class: Length 149.9m Beam 20.8m

As you can see here there are some differences in the sizes of the ships overall. What I suspect is that to achieve the 27(+?) knots the River class needed to lengthen itself a bit given the tonnage. Length to beam ratio or length of the hull at the waterline is an important number for speed (as a rule of thumb). It will suffer a bit on rate of turn, and might be a bit more lively in some sea states but I think overall that's probably a minor issue.

Which leads me to belive that the Hunter Class without any power changes will be slower. Speed is important in a lot of situations.

We can do the math if we want.

Speed to Length ratio = Knots / (Water Line Length) 0.5

Horsepower Required = Displacement / (10.665 / Speed to Length Ratio) 3

Disagree. With most ships now sporting LFA tails (and even LFA hull-mounts), plus helicopters with LFA, plus LFA sonobuoys, plus bi-statics and multi-statics, the advantage is shifting away from submarines and toward the surface fleet.

I have heard the same. I don't know enough about LFA but I certainly know that the Cyclone dipping sonar is "Mario cheat code" good.

it was this one

That infographic was generated by Navy Lookout themselves. Few errors in it, but overall its fine.

AFAIK there is nothing currently planeed for the aft silo as the decision to move to RAM was made recently. Growth space or perhaps they are looking at options.