Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Gorgo]

I think the "tenders" Gorgo is talking about are secondary reserve units administered and reporting through a single central one. We used to call them detachments. I don't think she is talking about vessels.

I'm a "he" despite my current avatar, but that doesn't matter.

I use the term "tender" for Naval Reserve Division detachments as that was the term used pre-Unification. As you can read in the history of HMCS STAR here: HMCS Star - Canada.ca

Lineage​

First of Name​

• Shore establishment.
• Naval Reserve Division, Hamilton, Ontario.
• Commissioned as a tender to HMCS Stadacona 1 November 1941.
• Recommissioned as an independent shore establishment 1 September 1942.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

Is this 900 tonnes number right? Like thats really heavy

 

[Rainbow1910]

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'm not sure how right that claim is, regarding the River class having its radar located higher up in the vessel than their Australian and British counterparts.

This isn't a perfect comparison image wise but I thought it was relevant, so I grabbed each of the designs in reasonably modern renders and placed them alongside each other. Type 26 (bottom) has its Type 997 Artisan radar system mounted at the highest point of the mast, this is possible due to the lightweight nature but lacklustre performance of the system. River (middle) has its SPY-7 arrays mounted above the main superstructure but nowhere near as high as the Type 26. Hunter has three array types, L-band (largest and lowest), S-Band (smaller and highest on the mast) and X-Band (smallest, placed between the L-Band panels).

Type 26 has the highest array by height, while River is generally tied with Hunter on height with regards to their highest arrays, although Hunter's highest arrays at S-Band.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I'm not sure how right that claim is, regarding the River class having its radar located higher up in the vessel than their Australian and British counterparts.

This isn't a perfect comparison image wise but I thought it was relevant, so I grabbed each of the designs in reasonably modern renders and placed them alongside each other. Type 26 (bottom) has its Type 997 Artisan radar system mounted at the highest point of the mast, this is possible due to the lightweight nature but lacklustre performance of the system. River (middle) has its SPY-7 arrays mounted above the main superstructure but nowhere near as high as the Type 26. Hunter has three array types, L-band (largest and lowest), S-Band (smaller and highest on the mast) and X-Band (smallest, placed between the L-Band panels).

Type 26 has the highest array by height, while River is generally tied with Hunter on height with regards to their highest arrays, although Hunter's highest arrays at S-Band.

I'm not sure how right that claim is, regarding the River class having its radar located higher up in the vessel than their Australian and British counterparts.

This isn't a perfect comparison image wise but I thought it was relevant, so I grabbed each of the designs in reasonably modern renders and placed them alongside each other. Type 26 (bottom) has its Type 997 Artisan radar system mounted at the highest point of the mast, this is possible due to the lightweight nature but lacklustre performance of the system. River (middle) has its SPY-7 arrays mounted above the main superstructure but nowhere near as high as the Type 26. Hunter has three array types, L-band (largest and lowest), S-Band (smaller and highest on the mast) and X-Band (smallest, placed between the L-Band panels).

Type 26 has the highest array by height, while River is generally tied with Hunter on height with regards to their highest arrays, although Hunter's highest arrays at S-Band.

I know this isn’t particularly relevant, but I find the RIVER to be the prettiest of the three. The mast looks the least like an afterthought appendage…

 

[Swampbuggy]

I know this bears little relevance to the conversation, but the RIVER is the prettiest of the three

, IMHO.

I know this isn’t particularly relevant, but I find the RIVER to be the prettiest of the three. The mast looks the least like an afterthought appendage…

Christ. I’d love to figure out how to fix when I screw up a reply posting…

EDIT…Just found the edit feature…

 

[KevinB]

The Ozzie’s seem to have forgotten an anchor on theirs…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Ozzie’s seem to have forgotten an anchor on theirs…

They felt the cardboard bow could not handle the weight and didn't want it to fall off.

 

[Good2Golf]

They felt the cardboard bow could not handle the weight and didn't want it to fall off.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the front isn’t supposed to fall off.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm not sure how right that claim is, regarding the River class having its radar located higher up in the vessel than their Australian and British counterparts.

This isn't a perfect comparison image wise but I thought it was relevant, so I grabbed each of the designs in reasonably modern renders and placed them alongside each other. Type 26 (bottom) has its Type 997 Artisan radar system mounted at the highest point of the mast, this is possible due to the lightweight nature but lacklustre performance of the system. River (middle) has its SPY-7 arrays mounted above the main superstructure but nowhere near as high as the Type 26. Hunter has three array types, L-band (largest and lowest), S-Band (smaller and highest on the mast) and X-Band (smallest, placed between the L-Band panels).

Type 26 has the highest array by height, while River is generally tied with Hunter on height with regards to their highest arrays, although Hunter's highest arrays at S-Band.

I wouldnt trust my eyes to tell or the rendering to be that accurate. CEAFAR is fat though. The 900 tonnes extra is still what gets me. How much heavier is CEAFAR on top of that. Did they add in an extra zero by mistake? Should it be 90 tonnes or 9 lol?

 

[Maxman1]

They felt the cardboard bow could not handle the weight and didn't want it to fall off.

It's got to have a steering wheel, there's crew minimums.

 

[Underway]

900 tonnes for the whole radar system. Not just the array. We're talking chilled water cabinets, processing cabinets, power cabinet, HVAC.
I wouldn't be surprised if it took a 100-200 ton chiller just for itself (and that's just the water weight not the system weight). I think the CEAFAR is heavier overall.

As for height you have to measure height of bridge. The RCN height is clearly higher then the CEAFAR to my eye (not RN version though) and it might be due to the rest of the radar equipment being located near to the radar itself. Thing with radars is that you usually don't want your processing to be to far from the radar itself, as that creates latency in processing which vs hypersonics in particular means your information has larger and larger errors.

Or the CRCN was just simplifying his answer for a local newspaper instead of getting into the minutae of radar design on warships (which he probably doesn't know either way).

The Ozzie’s seem to have forgotten an anchor on theirs…

The Hunter class image has an anchor on the forward bow (need to zoom in a bit to see it). The RCN and RN images have the second anchor on the starboard bow as well as forward bow.

 

[suffolkowner]

900 tonnes for the whole radar system. Not just the array. We're talking chilled water cabinets, processing cabinets, power cabinet, HVAC.
I wouldn't be surprised if it took a 100-200 ton chiller just for itself (and that's just the water weight not the system weight). I think the CEAFAR is heavier overall.

As for height you have to measure height of bridge. The RCN height is clearly higher then the CEAFAR to my eye (not RN version though) and it might be due to the rest of the radar equipment being located near to the radar itself. Thing with radars is that you usually don't want your processing to be to far from the radar itself, as that creates latency in processing which vs hypersonics in particular means your information has larger and larger errors.

Or the CRCN was just simplifying his answer for a local newspaper instead of getting into the minutae of radar design on warships (which he probably doesn't know either way).




The Hunter class image has an anchor on the forward bow (need to zoom in a bit to see it). The RCN and RN images have the second anchor on the starboard bow as well as forward bow.

But 900 tonnes more than Artisan or 900 tonnes total?

 

[Underway]

But 900 tonnes more than Artisan or 900 tonnes total?

Oh just 900 tonnes. Not more then AFAIK. UK also made their mast supporting that Artisan radar out of composites to reduce weight. Probably could do that because the Artisan radar isn't that heavy overall. I suspect the RCN radar isn't on a composite mast as a heavy radar likely needs stronger material (steel).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

900 tonnes for the whole radar system. Not just the array. We're talking chilled water cabinets, processing cabinets, power cabinet, HVAC.
I wouldn't be surprised if it took a 100-200 ton chiller just for itself (and that's just the water weight not the system weight). I think the CEAFAR is heavier overall.

As for height you have to measure height of bridge. The RCN height is clearly higher then the CEAFAR to my eye (not RN version though) and it might be due to the rest of the radar equipment being located near to the radar itself. Thing with radars is that you usually don't want your processing to be to far from the radar itself, as that creates latency in processing which vs hypersonics in particular means your information has larger and larger errors.

Or the CRCN was just simplifying his answer for a local newspaper instead of getting into the minutae of radar design on warships (which he probably doesn't know either way).




The Hunter class image has an anchor on the forward bow (need to zoom in a bit to see it). The RCN and RN images have the second anchor on the starboard bow as well as forward bow.

Are the chillers in the mast or deeper in the engineering spaces?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Are the chillers in the mast or deeper in the engineering spaces?

Likely down low, if my frigate experience is any guide.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely down low, if my frigate experience is any guide.

Going through Annapolis prior to sinking her, looking at what appeared to be ventilation ducting, till I realized it was actually wave guide about 12"x6"

 

[Underway]

Going through Annapolis prior to sinking her, looking at what appeared to be ventilation ducting, till I realized it was actually wave guide about 12"x6"

Wave guide is for radar signals, not chilling.

Are the chillers in the mast or deeper in the engineering spaces?

They generally have parts well down in the ship as it's often using the seawater to transfer heat to. But of course you have to chill the radars all the way up that mast. Plumbing, pumps and filters....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Wave guide is for radar signals, not chilling.

I am aware of that, just this conversation triggered that memory. I was used to looking at wave guide that was like 2x1". When you see wave guide like that, you realized how much power they are putting out.

 

[NavyShooter]

A question - how close does this look to the 'current' RCN plan:

Type 26 City Class Frigate 3D print model | 3D Print Model

Model available for download in Autodesk FBX format. Visit CGTrader and browse more than 1 million 3D models, including 3D print and real-time assets

www.cgtrader.com

I'm tempted...

 

[KevinB]

A question - how close does this look to the 'current' RCN plan:

Type 26 City Class Frigate 3D print model | 3D Print Model

Model available for download in Autodesk FBX format. Visit CGTrader and browse more than 1 million 3D models, including 3D print and real-time assets

www.cgtrader.com

I'm tempted...

So what you are really saying is you will have 15 CSC before the RCN does