Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
I suspect because there are now a bunch of options for self defence capability, that no one really sought that capability anymore in new builds.
While making a shorter VLS may seem like a great way to have capability in tight spaces, in practicality, it it often requires the same power, desk space, deluge etc. It isn't appreciably lighter. And the mass is also located higher, when loaded. Often top weight margins are critical on military ships so while it may seem doable before sitting down and trying to fit it, on actually engineering the solution it is not.
There are better ways to address the issues.
Which is why I imagine searam is quite likely to appear. Its a MOTS system, basically requiring no redesign or re-engineering, space weight, power, blast, cooling, water would all be included.
The ship can carry multiple launchers, and it is possible, at least theoretically, to reload at sea. Combined with quad pack VLS of ESSM, some SM-2, this is probably more firepower than Canada is looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if the searam launchers are built for but not with!
If however things do go bananas, and Canada does want to build something more capable, those pesky Australians are already there with a modified design with 32 vls up the front and carrying 96 VLS if you want to build a full on destroyer/cruiser specialized air defence vessel. There is no reason to delay building and redesign the ship just to fit weapons it wasn't really designed for and integrate systems, not already integrated.
While I know the plan for Canada is for 15 ships of exactly the same spec. It is entirely possible they could all be Type 26 base design, but vary in spec. This would be much cheaper and less risky than trying to create a jack of all ship.
While making a shorter VLS may seem like a great way to have capability in tight spaces, in practicality, it it often requires the same power, desk space, deluge etc. It isn't appreciably lighter. And the mass is also located higher, when loaded. Often top weight margins are critical on military ships so while it may seem doable before sitting down and trying to fit it, on actually engineering the solution it is not.
There are better ways to address the issues.
Which is why I imagine searam is quite likely to appear. Its a MOTS system, basically requiring no redesign or re-engineering, space weight, power, blast, cooling, water would all be included.
The ship can carry multiple launchers, and it is possible, at least theoretically, to reload at sea. Combined with quad pack VLS of ESSM, some SM-2, this is probably more firepower than Canada is looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if the searam launchers are built for but not with!
If however things do go bananas, and Canada does want to build something more capable, those pesky Australians are already there with a modified design with 32 vls up the front and carrying 96 VLS if you want to build a full on destroyer/cruiser specialized air defence vessel. There is no reason to delay building and redesign the ship just to fit weapons it wasn't really designed for and integrate systems, not already integrated.
While I know the plan for Canada is for 15 ships of exactly the same spec. It is entirely possible they could all be Type 26 base design, but vary in spec. This would be much cheaper and less risky than trying to create a jack of all ship.
It is generally accepted that this class will be built in 3 batches (or, if substantially modified, flights), the first 3 comprising Batch 1, and the following 6 being a modified version of the "baseline" Batch 1 ships. Those will comprise the 9 by 2040 that the press release from last week references. The remaining 6 are assumed to be substantially different, and I've even seen some supposition on other forums these may not even be GCS/T26 based. I do believe the Navy still wants more VLS however, and I believe they want this for the Batch 2 ships. How this all shakes out will be interesting.
With regards to SeaRAM, I don't think that is likely. Everything I've read (including the updated Wikipedia entry - I know!), indicates it will be the 21-cell Mk49 GMLS.
It's dated 2013. Bottom right corner, second page. I don't recall seeing any mentions in the last 10 years.
It's curious though - those are both live documents on the LM website. If LM wasn't still able to produce the SDL module, you would think someone would have amended or removed this document.
Underway
Active Member
Ships will be build in 4 flights. 3, 4, 4, 4 ships for each flight respectively. Each flight will be different from the next one guaranteed as lessons are learned and naval warfare evolves. I'm confident ship 1, 2 and 3 will be different from each other in some ways.
Those future batches would be good opportunities to look at packing more in and enlarging the design and finding design optimizations to maximize space etc. The ships may have more specific specialised roles as the build goes on, and that the first ships may be the least specialised, and the most generalist. That will mean the earliest ships will be very useful for training and design/specing for future ships
I think I have been using SeaRAM a bit generically to describe anything with a RIM116/RAM. I don't think Canada is looking for the redundancy and automaticness of seaRAM I think you are right they are probably mk49 RAM launchers cued by the ships systems. 2x21 would be a reasonable capability, and on top of decent load (32-64 quad pack) of ESSM bk II capability, really good layered defence.
I don't think CAMM would have offered anything significantly better. This is still a very capable outcome, perhaps more so. While CAMM has really good short range performance, RAM is built for that.
I was told by an insider that the self-defence length VLS was incompatible with ESSM (not sure which version) and would require design modifications to make it so. LM didn't see that effort as economically viable and just decided to stop offering it.
Thanks @Underway. I was using the quote from Admiral Topshee in CDR, though he did qualify his statement with a '"likely", so it seems that the plan has once again evolved. It seemed to jibe well with the press release last week that the RCN was going to have 9 ships (3+6) by 2040, with 6 more to produce by 2050. However, 3,4,4,4 is frankly better anyway, if staying ahead of threats and obsolescence is the goal (which it should be!).
Here is a pretty good write-up in Naval Lookout: A guide to the future Canadian Surface Combatant – the River-class destroyers | Navy Lookout
Last edited:
Underway
Active Member
I thought that article was pretty good, only a few errors that were relatively minor. I like their infographic they created as well, pointing out a few things I hadn't noticed. I have it on relatively good authority that the current aft silo is empty right now, as the RAM change was fairly recent (hence no change to the infographic picture). Leave it empty, space for future growth, or even a storage location for hangar top maintence tools is not a bad choice at this point.
Here is an interesting size comparison between the ships:
River Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 20.75m, Displacement 8080 tonnes
Hunter Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 21.4m, Displacement 8,167 -8800 tonnes (light vs full load)
City Class: Length 149.9m Beam 20.8m, Displacement 7700 - 8000 tonnes (light vs full load)
Here is an interesting size comparison between the ships:
River Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 20.75m, Displacement 8080 tonnes
Hunter Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 21.4m, Displacement 8,167 -8800 tonnes (light vs full load)
City Class: Length 149.9m Beam 20.8m, Displacement 7700 - 8000 tonnes (light vs full load)
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I find it hard to believe that either the RCN or RAN actually changed the hull form. Making the ship a bit longer would be challenging enough (from a design perspective), but cutting down the middle to make wider.....I don't think so. That would be a complete redesign of the ship, might as well start from scratch. As someone who as done a fair bit of CAD work (all be it not in ship design), slicing and adding in sections is not a simple task, with all the piping, electrical, bulkheads, floors, support beams, etc - not to mention trying to keep the lines fair - it would be man-years of work just to redraw all of that.
I think the additional length just comes from how the RCN and RAN are measuring - I think they include the 5 ft wide safety net at the back of the Heli deck, whereas the RN does not. The additional width is due to the wider mast of the RAN Hunter causing the satellite antennas to protrude out the sides more.
The waterline area of the ship is roughly 2600 square meters, so every 0.1 meters of additional displacement would add about 260 tonnes, so it would not take much additional depth to get the additional tonnes the RCN and RAN are looking for.
Just my opinion until someone gets an official word from somewhere. Would love to be proved wrong.
I think the additional length just comes from how the RCN and RAN are measuring - I think they include the 5 ft wide safety net at the back of the Heli deck, whereas the RN does not. The additional width is due to the wider mast of the RAN Hunter causing the satellite antennas to protrude out the sides more.
The waterline area of the ship is roughly 2600 square meters, so every 0.1 meters of additional displacement would add about 260 tonnes, so it would not take much additional depth to get the additional tonnes the RCN and RAN are looking for.
Just my opinion until someone gets an official word from somewhere. Would love to be proved wrong.
Underway
Active Member
I thought the same myself.
However to be devils advocate electrical on all three ships is likely very different already, as is quite a bit of the HVAC and likely the chilling/cooling systems as all the radars, weapons and in RCN's case comms are different. There is some super slick software out there that does the baseline electrical planning for you (obviously with human input and adjustment). There was also input into the design from the UK build which had some issues fitting a few pieces of (common to all three) engine space equipment. And the RCN and RAN check in with each other often on problems/solutions/challenges.
Or the stern flap is a bit longer... lol.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The only place I can find giving 21.4m for the bean on the Hunter is Wikipedia(dubious at best), the RAN has 20.8m on its website, BAE has length only.
I think the larger issue with changing hull shape and gravity centre lines is the impact on dynamic performance (how the ship reacts to waves, the impact on propulsion etc). Some of this can be simulated in computer finite element models, however fine tuning usually still requires actual testing (same reason cars still get physically crash tested). This can be very time consuming. The larger the change the more work is required, as the RAN I think discovered.
CAD static modelling (how things are stretched and realigned) also takes time, however in comparison to the dynamic, its an easier task.
To your maths, yes a small change to the waterline has a substantial impact on buoyancy. More than people think. If you get it wrong, then you might be forced to add several hundred tonnes of ballast, accept substantially lower speeds, less range, insufficient stability for weapons/sensors, or limitations on sea state/damage control. Or in worst cases, all of these.
In regards to machinery compatibility across the three derivitive platforms, I would think that propulsion, electrical and hotel services would likely be near the same. There would however be some changes for weapons support systems such as chilled water, and high frequency power (normally 400Hz supplies) to cope with the larger radars.
Last edited:
Beefing up the Hunter class | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
I would believe the 0.6 increase and reprofiling of the hull. It wasn't driven by the weapons, but by the radar. Australia *REALLY* wants a class leading radar fitted that is both physically huge in physical dimensions, heavy, and requires power, cooling etc more than most. The radar is so massive, it probably cannot be fitted to any military ship currently designed. Including aircraft carriers, without adjustment. RAN had embedded people in the UK during the Type 26 original design process to ensure the design had suitable margins for Australia's ambitions, as far as possible.
The radar, being high and big, beam, is the most critical area. While perhaps Canadás ambitions could be met with a mild lengthening.
The redesign wasn't foreseen at the outset, because the original design went over their specified margins while under construction.
I think its real, I think its expensive, I think it took a lot of time. But Australia wants very high capability ships, capable of land strike and Ballistic missile defence, and its ships need the longest endurance, and often require the highest capability in terms of tropical water operations etc.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I stand corrected. And mind blown!Beefing up the Hunter class | The Australian Naval Institute
I would believe the 0.6 increase and reprofiling of the hull. It wasn't driven by the weapons, but by the radar. Australia *REALLY* wants a class leading radar fitted that is both physically huge in physical dimensions, heavy, and requires power, cooling etc more than most. The radar is so massive, it probably cannot be fitted to any military ship currently designed. Including aircraft carriers, without adjustment. RAN had embedded people in the UK during the Type 26 original design process to ensure the design had suitable margins for Australia's ambitions, as far as possible.
The radar, being high and big, beam, is the most critical area. While perhaps Canadás ambitions could be met with a mild lengthening.
The redesign wasn't foreseen at the outset, because the original design went over their specified margins while under construction.
I think its real, I think its expensive, I think it took a lot of time. But Australia wants very high capability ships, capable of land strike and Ballistic missile defence, and its ships need the longest endurance, and often require the highest capability in terms of tropical water operations etc.
I completely understand your skepticism. It has hard to digest what was happening and rumors were rife. Which gives some idea about how quickly the different ships are evolving. That being said, if an air defence design was to happen, the work done may be very useful for that. Australia put a lot of work customizing a now ~6 ship build.
We have to be careful about with, the way it was communicated may not be maximum type 26 beam + 0.6m, the 0.6 may have been added in an area that was not the maximum beam, and max beam increases, but not by 0.6m. Which is why perhaps official sources leave it blank, as what ever number they quote, it will trigger more questions.
With Australia looking at a different, ship, perhaps a 32 cell VLS 6,200t ASW combatant, Australia's ships are more likely to become a bit focused, perhaps on Air defence and less of a general purpose ship/frigate. But it isn't super clear at this point, we will know more as the ships are closer to commissioning.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I find it astounding that having spent so much time and money developing a world-class ship, we then cut the numbers because it is too expensive. Those costs are not recoverable so what was the point, just build more of them to amortise the costs. We always seem to do this.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Australia is hardly alone wrt cutting build numbers….UK T26s, Zumwalts. F-22s, etc after spending a ton of coin on development.