Ditto and you can ad Mr Conservative to the list of missing posters who has interesting things to say.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Underway
Active Member
I will check that out! Thanks.
Edit: went to the thread and could not find any evidence to corroborate the original poster. Not saying they are wrong, just it would be good to get two lines for a fix on the chart. I'll keep looking into things.
Of note, there are some design differences between the Host ExLS that goes into a Mk41 and the stand alone ExLS triple launcher. Not sure if they are different enough that would change whether four vs three missiles can be packed in but that all depends on whether its the missile itself or the cold launch system that's the space problem.
But that might just be a healthy dose of hope-ium.
Last edited:
It's possible that the original information was overtaken by events and Lockmart did the integration at some point - maybe the quad pack not-happening referred to Sylver only - it's frustrating as my source is a very bright RN guy who's definitely not prone to flights of imagination on this stuff.
I suppose we'll see.
Which ultimately means that CSC will need to be close to an allied AWD in any near-peer fight. Not quite as multi-role as RCN has tried to advertise. Just baffling that we are still probably 10 years away from seeing the first operational ship and have already run out of margin with presumably nothing that can be done about it.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Surely you aren’t surprised considering the numerous C-F acquisitions by DND (with lots of pollies helping). Example, yet another tender for hand guns to replace the CAF’s 70 year old plus Brownings.
Underway
Active Member
You evidently understand that no ship is an island due to the second half of the statement but fail to consider a RCN task group is supposed to be (doctrinally in Leadmark 2050 which I've posted before) four of these ships all working together to provide task group air defense. The Warfare Centre does their modeling on ships working together not ships alone.
Given the normal pace of operations, the RCN embarks in regularly we are almost always in the company of other ships in a NATO TG or USN TG. It might not be an AAW frigate but is certainly no slouch given anything resembling a team environment.
And to be perfectly fair kinetic is less than half the story. Sensors, and soft kill are much more important in the naval missile war. The RCN puts quite a bit of effort into ESM, ECM, EW that is not obvious, easily explained or public domain
I'm a glass half full type. But salt away, I'm irritated with the reduction in VLS as well. I just don't see it as bad as others might.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I agree, the VLS capability is somewhat concerning, especially if design considerations limit the capacity as opposed to bean counters wanting to limit the missile numbers. Perhaps of even greater concern, what about future hypersonic missiles? They are likely going to be larger so if the commitment for 15 ships remains, significant design changes for the last 4-6 ships makes sense to accommodate them. If this isn’t feasible then the RCN should be looking for a 4-6 build of larger vessels.
Underway
Active Member
Bean counters don't limit the missiles. No one has ever said, "we need to save money, take a few missiles off of there". The RCN is the customer. The project builds the ships to the customers desires. If the ship doesn't have the required missiles then that's because of conflicting requirements or an flash to bang payoff.
Also I would argue that missiles not the worst threat to a ship. Torpedos are. So if you have to tradeoff missiles for torpedo defense I would vote for that change.
Also I would argue that missiles not the worst threat to a ship. Torpedos are. So if you have to tradeoff missiles for torpedo defense I would vote for that change.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
No, the RCN is the user, the pollies are more the customer IMO. If the pollies want to divert money from defence to other programs that will enhance re-election, they will do so.
Don’t disagree that torpedoes are real ship sinkers but missiles are a huge threat. I imagine navies have calculated the odds of being hit by missiles versus torpedoes.
Underway
Active Member
However you wish to define it, the RCN is the government's agent in ensuring the project goes where it needs to go. They have been given control of the project requirements within the defined budget. The RCN is responsible along with the Project Management Office to raise budgetary concerns to the Treasury Board.
If the government decided to move money elsewhere the RCN would decide what requirements are prioritized and what gets cut in conjunction with the PMO and the builder. Bean counters can reduce the budget but they don't get a say in what gets cut. The operators do.
Might have the same effect, but the RCN is in control of what goes on the ship if it meets the budget.
If the government decided to move money elsewhere the RCN would decide what requirements are prioritized and what gets cut in conjunction with the PMO and the builder. Bean counters can reduce the budget but they don't get a say in what gets cut. The operators do.
Might have the same effect, but the RCN is in control of what goes on the ship if it meets the budget.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
At the end of the day it is the effect that counts. When I say bean counters I really mean pollies who have different ideas on how tax dollars are utilized (often on programs for they believe will enhance re-election). At the moment, the RCAF has urgent requirements for new fighters, tankers, and recently a RFI on MPA (P-8s). Should pollies decide on a reduced budget for the RCAF, the RCAF will prioritize the cuts. Fewer fighters for tankers or P-8s, clearly an effect by pollies (aka bean counters).
The RCN chose to limit the design changes at this time in an effort to cut steel as soon as possible on Hull 1. But these are going to be built in batches (or flights) in a 3, 6, and 6 production rate. Each batch will differ significantly from the previous batch, with technology insertion and capability enhancements. So, if the first 3 are built with 24 MK41 VLS, and we know that the RCN "wants" at least 32, there is time to address the margin concerns before the start of construction of the first Batch 2 ship (Hull 4). I'm quite confidant that we will see a CSC with 32 MK41 VLS at some point in this project's lifetime. Maybe even more than 32.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Design changes to date along with a change to accommodate another 8 cells may affect other capabilities like range and speed. Adding more than 8 could mean a significant change. Perhaps the third block needs to be a new ship design if larger missile load outs are needed or more room for hypersonic missiles. New energy hungry systems may require more power hence additional space for a second MT30, again something that favours a new design. It likely the RN and RAN come to the same conclusion thus all three navies could partner in on a larger ship design.
Wait, just catching up on this...the Canadians plan to use...OTSTs..for offensive ASW?
OTSTs?
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
The other possibility to improve on the power available would be to change from CODLOG to IEP. I think that could be done with far less - or no - impact on hull size. Just remove the entire transmission and replace with a single AC generator on the MT-30 + associated switch gear.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Don’t know about relative cost but would guess it is more. A more powerful electric motor would be required. It is unfortunate IEP wasn’t in the T26 design, mostly because of the T45 propulsion problem and no doubt cost. The QE and Zumwalt IEP powered ships have performed well. Both use MT30 GTs with MTU diesels for hotel load.
I get the logic for retaining OTSTs for defensive (eg counterfire/Urgent Attack) purposes (I don't agree with it per se, or at least not for a design where you are looking for service out of it for the next 30-40 years-I think the logic for their employment is reflective of a way that most enemy submarines don't operate anymore, and like what happened to blooming chaff launchers, I think we've got about 10-15 years before they've been completely eclipsed and outdated by technology). But I get it; SVTTs are cheap and well known.
But he talked instead of helicopters. So the only thing I can correlate that with is OTST for offensive weapons; might as well go with mortars and depth charges, Pk probably ends up about the same.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
LM’s Spy7 land radar has been adapted for Japan’s Aegis destroyer. Good news for the CSC program which will use Spy7 as well as Spain’s frigate program.
www.navalnews.com
Lockheed demonstrates the integration of SPY-7 into Aegis for Japan - Naval News
Lockheed Martin completed a successful demonstration of AN/SPY-7(v)1 radar integration into Aegis Weapon System of Japan.
www.navalnews.com
The CSC will have an ASW helicopter embarked. Nobody said it would have shipboard torpedo tubes instead of helicopters. In case it wasn't clear, what was said is that Canada cannot rely on carrier-based ASW helicopters, like the UK can.