Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I like RAM and the Millenium gun and see no reason why the other design contenders couldn't offer this as well. I doubt 32 versus 48 VLS will be an issue for the decision. The CMS and radar will be more important. As the RCN is very familiar with the LM Canada CMS, that has to be an advantage for the BAE design as LM Canada partnered with them.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
T26 with two Millenium guns in place of the two Phalanx as shown on the diagrams would IMHO be a far better option as it is more of a multi purpose system than the Phalanx. The addition of SeaRam would improve the current gap that exists between ESSM and Phalanx.

Talk of ASROC to fill tubes in the MK41 is an interesting discussion. Can those here see this as a possibility? We used to have ASROC on the Improved Restigouche class up to the early 1990s.

As far as I am concerned the more MK41 the better. And they should be in two banks forward nd aft to prevent loss from battle damage.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As far as I am concerned the more MK41 the better. And they should be in two banks forward nd aft to prevent loss from battle damage.
If you take a hit by an AShM or a torpedo I doubt that the ship could continue to float let alone fight so the longitudinal separation is of little consequence.
More cells is important both to the mix of weapons and to sustained effort but I don’t believe there is either the space or the stability margins in the Navantia hull to accomodate a second bank.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If you take a hit by an AShM or a torpedo I doubt that the ship could continue to float let alone fight so the longitudinal separation is of little consequence.
More cells is important both to the mix of weapons and to sustained effort but I don’t believe there is either the space or the stability margins in the Navantia hull to accomodate a second bank.
From what I have seen and read a number of the modern warships would be damaged (what might possiblyh be considered a mission kill) by an AShM strike, but not be in serious danger of sinking. The Iraqi strike on the USS Stark on 17 May 1987 using Exocet AShM comes to mind, as do the more recent strikes like the one on 14 July 2006 where an AShM struck the INS Hanit, a Sa'ar 5-class FSG of the Israeli Navy off the coast of Beirut, or the AShM strike on HSV-2 Swift that happened 1 October 2016.

There have also been a few SINKEX exercises where decommissioned warships have served as targets for various types of ordnance and been struck, sometimes repeatedly without sinking. A torpedoe, especially a 21" heavyweight torpedoe, detonating below the keel of a warship would most likely break the back of a ship and sink her fairly quickly.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
T26 with two Millenium guns in place of the two Phalanx as shown on the diagrams would IMHO be a far better option as it is more of a multi purpose system than the Phalanx. The addition of SeaRam would improve the current gap that exists between ESSM and Phalanx.

Talk of ASROC to fill tubes in the MK41 is an interesting discussion. Can those here see this as a possibility? We used to have ASROC on the Improved Restigouche class up to the early 1990s.

As far as I am concerned the more MK41 the better. And they should be in two banks forward nd aft to prevent loss from battle damage.
Personally I can see a shift back towards ASROC. With the advent of UAVs it would be simpler and cheaper to use an unarmed UAV that had a sole mission of detecting an enemy sub and then use long range system such as ASROC to attack it.

Having shipborne lightweight torpedoes is all well and good but really, I wouldn't want to get that close to an enemy sub.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Personally I can see a shift back towards ASROC. With the advent of UAVs it would be simpler and cheaper to use an unarmed UAV that had a sole mission of detecting an enemy sub and then use long range system such as ASROC to attack it.

Having shipborne lightweight torpedoes is all well and good but really, I wouldn't want to get that close to an enemy sub.
There could be some utility in having the VL-ASROC to augment the ordnance carried aboard a naval/ASW helicopter, but I do not see an unarmed UAS/ship-mounted ASW weaponry combo as an adequate replacement for armed naval/ASW helicopters. The range on the VL-ASROC is ~24 km and if I understand how the system functions correctly, the (Mk 46 or Mk 54) LWT carried via the VL-ASROC missile can then go ~11 km further for a total of up to ~35 km. This range is still shorter than some of the heavyweight torpedoes carried aboard subs, and is certainly shorter than the range of many sub-launched AShM or the distance away from a ship that an embarked naval helicopter can sortie to.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
T26 with two Millenium guns in place of the two Phalanx as shown on the diagrams would IMHO be a far better option as it is more of a multi purpose system than the Phalanx. The addition of SeaRam would improve the current gap that exists between ESSM and Phalanx.

Talk of ASROC to fill tubes in the MK41 is an interesting discussion. Can those here see this as a possibility? We used to have ASROC on the Improved Restigouche class up to the early 1990s.

As far as I am concerned the more MK41 the better. And they should be in two banks forward nd aft to prevent loss from battle damage.
Every model I have seen of the LM T26 proposal for CSC has SeaRAM, not CIWS (Phalanx). There are also two secondary gun mounts aft that appear to be BAE Mk 38s, which makes sense given this is the same gun on AOPS.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The current arrangement for the RN T26 has two sets of Sea Ceptor cells for that very reason - even if you're simply dealing with a fault with a missile (dud launch etc) then that separation does mean you can work that problem and still be able to launch missiles.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
The current arrangement for the RN T26 has two sets of Sea Ceptor cells for that very reason - even if you're simply dealing with a fault with a missile (dud launch etc) then that separation does mean you can work that problem and still be able to launch missiles.
Sure, but compared to most VL-SAM the Sea Ceptor has a significantly smaller ship based footprint for the launch equipment, both in volume and in weight since it doesn’t need to withstand and redirect the hot exhaust gases.

I am curious whether the launch method impacts rate of fire though, whether positively or negatively.
 

beegee

Active Member
There could be some utility in having the VL-ASROC to augment the ordnance carried aboard a naval/ASW helicopter, but I do not see an unarmed UAS/ship-mounted ASW weaponry combo as an adequate replacement for armed naval/ASW helicopters. The range on the VL-ASROC is ~24 km and if I understand how the system functions correctly, the (Mk 46 or Mk 54) LWT carried via the VL-ASROC missile can then go ~11 km further for a total of up to ~35 km. This range is still shorter than some of the heavyweight torpedoes carried aboard subs, and is certainly shorter than the range of many sub-launched AShM or the distance away from a ship that an embarked naval helicopter can sortie to.
The value of ASROC is speed. You can put a torpedo on the target in a fraction of the time it would take a helicopter to launch and transition to the target.
 

SteveR

Active Member
The value of ASROC is speed. You can put a torpedo on the target in a fraction of the time it would take a helicopter to launch and transition to the target.
But VL ASROC is relatively short range of about 15nm according to Norman Polmar - less than a sub fired torpedo or ASUW, and much less than first Convergence Zone detection possible with ships own towed sonar.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Every model I have seen of the LM T26 proposal for CSC has SeaRAM, not CIWS (Phalanx). There are also two secondary gun mounts aft that appear to be BAE Mk 38s, which makes sense given this is the same gun on AOPS.
Hopefully the CSC gets 35 mm not 25 mm. The AOPS has a single 25 mm gun, rather pathetic for a 600 million dollar ship displacing over 6000 tons.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article mentions concerns about the management of the naval ship building program. Don't know the background of this government advisor Steve Brunton. The story references a government minister as saying there will be a CSC decision by the end of 2018 and a contract award in early 2019. We can only hope. The SeaSpan issue is a concern, especially the JSS cost going from 2 billion plus to around 3.4 billion and even this number may go over 4 billion. This is even more depressing after reading about another Tide class ship being just about ready to enter service with the RN at a fraction of the cost.

Federal shipbuilding program poorly managed and lacks oversight, government adviser warns
 

beegee

Active Member
But VL ASROC is relatively short range of about 15nm according to Norman Polmar - less than a sub fired torpedo or ASUW, and much less than first Convergence Zone detection possible with ships own towed sonar.
A tube launched ASW torpedo has an even shorter range, but every ASW ship carries them. People get way too fixated on weapon range. Real warfare isn't like a game of Harpoon where he who has the longest ranged weapons wins.

An ASW ship needs at least one ASW helicopter and tube launched ASW torpedoes. If you add ASROC to that mix then you gain the extra capability of quick reaction.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
This article mentions concerns about the management of the naval ship building program. Don't know the background of this government advisor Steve Brunton. The story references a government minister as saying there will be a CSC decision by the end of 2018 and a contract award in early 2019. We can only hope. The SeaSpan issue is a concern, especially the JSS cost going from 2 billion plus to around 3.4 billion and even this number may go over 4 billion. This is even more depressing after reading about another Tide class ship being just about ready to enter service with the RN at a fraction of the cost.

Federal shipbuilding program poorly managed and lacks oversight, government adviser warns
The report referenced in the article was written in Feb 2016. Steve Brunton is an Ex-RN officer hired to assist the government with the NSPS: Government of Canada Selects Expert to Advise on National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy

Most of the recommendations in that report were implemented. Classic example of "Fake News".
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A tube launched ASW torpedo has an even shorter range, but every ASW ship carries them. People get way too fixated on weapon range. Real warfare isn't like a game of Harpoon where he who has the longest ranged weapons wins.

An ASW ship needs at least one ASW helicopter and tube launched ASW torpedoes. If you add ASROC to that mix then you gain the extra capability of quick reaction.
Agreed that actual warfare is not a game. However there are some realities which are pretty inescapable with regards to ASW. The first is that in an engagement between a modern sub and surface ASW escort, unless the surface escort is receiving data from offboard assets, the sub will most likely be aware of the position of the surface vessel well before the ASW escort becomes aware of the sub. The second is that the weapons potentially available aboard a sub to engage a surface ASW escort with can well exceed the engagement envelope of the ASW escort's weapons which are capable of engaging the sub, if it were to be detected. What this in turn means is that a sub can set the terms of an engagement in it's favour and potentially take a position where it can attack the ASW escort from outside the max engagement range of the surface vessel, and possibly before the ASW escort even becomes aware that there is a sub in the area.

Now in modern warfare, the above scenario should not be allowed to happen, since other platforms like land and/or ship-based fixed-wing and helicopter ASW aircraft can be available which can extend the potential detection range of a hostile sub by tens if not a hundred or more km's beyond what a surface ASW escort can do on it's own. The USN developed a concept which described zones around "mission essential units" to provide a defence in depth against subs and other threats. The outer most zone is referred to as the surveillance area, and the likely assets active in covering this area would be MPA like the P-3 Orion or now P-8 Poseidon, as well as E-2 Hawkeye AWACS. The middle zone is referred to as the classification, identification and engagement area, and at present this area would primarily be covered by naval helicopters. The final zone, closest to the essential units, is referred to as the vital area and it is in this area that surface ASW escorts operate in, as well as naval helicopters. Now the size of the zones can differ depending on the maritime region and potential threat, but that last zone, the vital area is usually limited to the threat weapon range.

IMO what all the above means is that whenever and wherever possible, threats from hostile subs are to be detected and dealt with by ASW aircraft well before the sub can get close enough to be engaged by surface vessels. The two primary ASW roles for a surface escort in this concept are to provide a base to support naval helicopters and their crews, and to potentially deal with leakers if hostile subs manage to penetrate the first two zones, but even in the vital area, the surface ASW assets would be operating with and supporting ASW helicopters.

In such a scenario, where an embarked naval helicopter could potentially be operating 40+ km away from it's host or another ASW surface escort, then the capabilities of ASROC or VL-ASROC are moot. Also, expanding the potential threat scenario out, a ship, task force or navy might very well decide that there are better uses for the launch cell space that an ASROC or VL-ASROC might occupy. If the area the surface vessel will be operating in is within range of either land-based AShM, and/or land-based MPA or maritime strike aircraft, then I could easily see a threat matrix where having more air defence capability was called for, so thatan ASROC or VL-ASROC might get replaced by four ESSM, or an SM-2, or some other type or combination of air defence missiles.

IMO the USN does things a little differently because it can afford to, having both a greater quantity of assets than other nations, as well as those assets being generally more capable or having more potential loadout options. Four or eight VLS cells out of ~96, set aside for VL-ASROC would no IMO significantly degrade the available air defence capability of a vessel. That same four or eight VLS load out, when the total number of VLS cells is 32 to 48 cells is a bit of a different story.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The AOPS design was originally contracted to BMT and STX Canada. I have seen recently the design team is now listed as Vard/BMT. It does seem the AOPS is a Vard 100 Ice which in turn may have some Svalbard class DNA depending on which source you want to believe. Regardless, there has been lots of controversy over cost and CONOPS for these ships. Compared to Danish and Norwegian counterparts, the Canadian AOPS are grossly underarmed.
 
Top