John Fedup
The Bunker Group
How about BFF? The debate on classification/naming has been ongoing on other naval threads here and elsewhere as surface ships increase in size from their traditional (historical?) displacements.
Being a traditionalist I wish all this PC nonsense calling Destroyers Frigates and so forth would stop. I don't care what the political spin doctors call it so as to not offend the snowflakes out there but an 8000 tonne 150m warship with 48 VLS and a 5" gun is not a Frigate in my book. It is at the very least a Destroyer. Anzacs and OHP are Frigate sized. They need to back the truck up on all this sort of thing. Rant over!Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
@UnderwayI wrote that in my post.
CAMM - self point defence against air warfare threats
ESSM - local air defence
SM2/6 - area air defence
Naval Strike Missile - its in the name, striking naval targets (surface warfare, limited land attack).
Strike length VLS allows for land attack missiles (Tomahawk for example), ASROC etc...
Read Leadmark 2050. All the major RCN doctrine and missions are in there. The weapons and sensors for the ship are based on that.
Most of the weapons loadout for CSC is based on self and task group defence. All the AAW missiles are for defence against air threats. The biggest difference really with the CSC from the frigates/destroyer construct is offensive capability. The CSC will have 3 offensive weapons (127mm and 2 missile types) where as currently we only have one offensive option.
No Canada is not the US. But that's not what we are doing here. We are not copying the US or even the UK in this. The requirements for the CSC are entirely mission based and modeling based on our own requirements. It's not about more missiles for the sake of missiles, it's about more survivability and mission success within the Canadian Task Group construct. The requirements drive the loadout.
ie: Multiple cheap anti ship missiles are a Chinese tactic. Perhaps future threat analysis says that our frigates need to be able to deal with that. Thus load many more missiles in overlapping ranges and zones to survive a large amount of missiles directed at you.
You mean this...?BAE Australia Twitter account header image
Even they and the Leahy class(and there Nuke powered near Sisters) went through several changes of designation from Destroyer Leader(DLG) to Guided Missile Cruiser(CG) and where quite often referred to as Frigates.Traditional designation of something 150 m and 8000 tons is light cruiser. The T26 is not too far off the size of the US Navy Belknap Class cruisers of the 60s and 70s.
Ah you've surfaced. Not so distraught today? I emptied the rum barrel self medicating afterwards.Being a traditionalist I wish all this PC nonsense calling Destroyers Frigates and so forth would stop. I don't care what the political spin doctors call it so as to not offend the snowflakes out there but an 8000 tonne 150m warship with 48 VLS and a 5" gun is not a Frigate in my book. It is at the very least a Destroyer. Anzacs and OHP are Frigate sized. They need to back the truck up on all this sort of thing. Rant over!
I think this illustrates the problem that exists amongst the FVEY navies of how do you define a frigate. Do you define it by its:Well it's a destrigate or a frigstroyer (frigroyer?). Other options are:
-Battlefrigate
-Light Destroyer
-Heavy Frigate (this one actually seems likely)
-Command Frigate
-Pocket Destroyer
Alternative historical terminology...
-Destroyer Escort (later Ocean Escort)
-Hunter Killer Destroyer
-Escort Destroyer
-Destroyer Leader
Though I did asked this question of the CRCN himself at a town hall and his response was "What are the British and Aussies calling them? -me...frigate sir- Well it seems pretty stupid to call it a destroyer when everyone else calls it a frigate. Does the name even really matter that much? That it's a good ship is all I care about!")
The real answer? It's not so simple. To state its political correctness is completely wrong. Every nation has its own naming conventions.So this really begs the question - by what criteria do we now define them?
30 years ago there were some in the then Labour government trying to have PM David Lange call the Kiwi Anzacs "Ocean Patrol Vessels" to appease the left wing of the party and peace activists like Owen Wilkes who were organising public protests against their acquisition. Even earlier the RN were going to call the three Harrier Carriers through deck cruisers to pull the wool over the eyes of their political masters and a grumpy electorate.Ah you've surfaced. Not so distraught today? I emptied the rum barrel self medicating afterwards.
Is the current nomenclature conventions for warship categorisation PC nonsense drive by spin doctors? I don't think so, but I think a hangover from the end of WW2 when the RN reintroduced the category of frigate to its fleet when it recategorised its newer and larger corvettes.
Why not simply introduce a NATO classification system to allow translation between different national classification systems, rather like they already do with ranks? For instance "OF-6" is a Canadian Commodore, a Danish Flotilleadmiral, a French Contre-amiral etc?Warship classification exists for two reasons, one practical and one political. Practically, naming a group of ships with similar characteristics allows for better comparison of capabilities within and among navies. Politically, warship classifications signal national intentions or influence political leaders who fund warship construction. While the practical reason may seem more functional, the political reason frequently determines classification. Captain James P. McGrath, III, USN
Further to this, AOPV 2 is now on the barge: AOPS #2 loaded onto Barge | Halifax Shipping News.caLooks like some movement this weekend on the AOPS (AOPV) program. AOPV 2 (future HMCS Margaret Brooke) will launch, and AOPV 1 (HMCS Harry DeWolf) will start sea trials:AOPS Updates | Halifax Shipping News.ca
Interesting pics of AOPV 2 on the barge: The future HMCS Margaret Brooke transitioned to barge for launchFurther to this, AOPV 2 is now on the barge: AOPS #2 loaded onto Barge | Halifax Shipping News.ca
No word on AOPV 1 (HMCS Harry DeWolf), and if she started her sea trials today as reported earlier this week.
In the Bedford basin now, prepping for launch tomorrow morning: AOPS #2 Moves to the Basin | Halifax Shipping News.caInteresting pics of AOPV 2 on the barge: The future HMCS Margaret Brooke transitioned to barge for launch
The stern shots show the specially designed props and the various cranes to good effect. They also highlight the size of the ship.
According to the following, AOPV 2 (431) was launced this morning, and HMCS Harry DeWolf (430) is due to start sea trials on Nov. 21st: AOPS #2 Launched | Halifax Shipping News.ca@Calculus ...No news yet on the DeWolf?
And finally, some pictures of her in the water after her launch: Halifax Shipyard launches Canada’s second Arctic and Offshore Patrol ShipIn the Bedford basin now, prepping for launch tomorrow morning: AOPS #2 Moves to the Basin | Halifax Shipping News.ca
First bits of video I could find:According to the following, AOPV 2 (431) was launced this morning, and HMCS Harry DeWolf (430) is due to start sea trials on Nov. 21st: AOPS #2 Launched | Halifax Shipping News.ca
I will try and locate some video of the actual launch.
Hi Calculus. I really believe that although SPY 6 (V) 1 or SPY 6 (V) 4 would be very good choices for the CSC, the "real" winner will be Lockheed Martins' Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for the CSC Frigate. The SPY 6-4 panel versions seem to be a bit too large for the 4 sided antenna platform of the CSC. Missile Defence Agency (MDA), as one of the LM partners for the CSC, is the company responsible for the Air Warning system for the CSC frigate, and have sold the ground-based LRDR Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system to Japan last year and the photos look very similar to a Naval ship "reduced" version of that system. LRDR is an excellent 4-faced phased array, solid state,"scaled up or down" radar developed by LM, that I believe will rival that of the SPY 6. LM has been contracted by the USN to fit the LRDR to the US LCS ships and new frigates. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!I think so too, but could also be one of the SPY1 variants (D or F). Also confusing are the words "fire control radar", as the SPY radars appear to be volume search, not fire control. The Aegis installations I have seen (including the Hobarts) have separate fire control radars ("illuminators"), those being the SPG-62, which are dish radars in the X-band. SAAB Ceros 200 performs this function on the Halifax class.
EASR is related to SPY6 (uses the same radar modules) but different in that it seems to be designed for either a single rotating or a 3-sided installation, whereas CSC appears to have a 4-face radar. The FFG(X) designs have EASR, and are 3-sided, so I would lean more towards SPY than EASR at this point, assuming the CSC rendering is correct.
EASR: Raytheon: Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar
SPY-6: Raytheon: AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)
LM FFG(X) Design with EASR: SNA 2018: Lockheed Martin Unveils its FFG(X) Frigate Design
Bath Iron Works FFG(X) Design (Navantia F100) with EASR: Navantia Selected for the Conceptual Phase of the US Navy FFG(X) Frigate Program
OK - I'm going to bite....and yes I too am very grumpy right now .....