• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,636
Points
1,040
That is a double edged sword, if you plan for all that at build then it makes the ship too expensive. Then you dont get new ships, or as many.
We build margins in everywhere else but personnel and accommodations. We frequently retire classes that still have equipment margins (usually means they are running less efficiently in real terms) but have never run into the case of 'we have too many empty bunks'.

Why we don't explicitly have excess capacity for people I will never know; we don't even have training bunks, it's so silly. I can basically guarantee that we will very quickly have to start figuring out who to leave behind, especially when the initial ships are trying to do directed group training and all the dog and pony shows, or get deployed with a bunch of riders and staff weenies.

Much easier to have a few extra bunks and lockers, and bigger water and sewage tanks are always an operational benefit, regardless of how many people you have on board.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
So is having EEBDs in the area to enable escape in a smoke filled environment.

EEBD's are a nightmare to place in the Outfitting and Furnishing Diagrams.

The modelers have no clue what to do with them. I've spent more time trying to get them into places that are accessible and not in the way of the workspace. And its still probably wrong. And its not even my job! But as a sailor you just can't look at it and let it go, you have to say something. It's the sort of thing on a new ship that makes people crazy if they are not in a good spot.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,190
Points
1,140
We build margins in everywhere else but personnel and accommodations. We frequently retire classes that still have equipment margins (usually means they are running less efficiently in real terms) but have never run into the case of 'we have too many empty bunks'.

Why we don't explicitly have excess capacity for people I will never know; we don't even have training bunks, it's so silly. I can basically guarantee that we will very quickly have to start figuring out who to leave behind, especially when the initial ships are trying to do directed group training and all the dog and pony shows, or get deployed with a bunch of riders and staff weenies.

Much easier to have a few extra bunks and lockers, and bigger water and sewage tanks are always an operational benefit, regardless of how many people you have on board.
A rope to them them on, and some space on the deck ;)
 

Rd651

Guest
Reaction score
2
Points
230
On FRE I had six watch keepers sleeping in the ailes of 2 Stores.

Made the operation of my warehouse almost impossible. For supply it's like having people set up racks in the MCR or Ops Room.
LOL on Freddy in 2015, I slept in FYLCO for 3 weeks as the Snr FFtr when FRE became Flag Ship... I didn't mind waking up and looking out the windows at the Med....it was a great change, but got old after a while because of noise in foreign port as that was my rack location....lol
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
LOL on Freddy in 2015, I slept in FYLCO for 3 weeks as the Snr FFtr when FRE became Flag Ship... I didn't mind waking up and looking out the windows at the Med....it was a great change, but got old after a while because of noise in foreign port as that was my rack location....lol
Oooh corner apartment in the busy street. Very nice! lol People pay a lot of money for a cruise ship bunk like that!
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,327
Points
1,360
EEBD's are a nightmare to place in the Outfitting and Furnishing Diagrams.

The modelers have no clue what to do with them. I've spent more time trying to get them into places that are accessible and not in the way of the workspace. And its still probably wrong. And its not even my job! But as a sailor you just can't look at it and let it go, you have to say something. It's the sort of thing on a new ship that makes people crazy if they are not in a good spot.
Are those permanent fitment EEBDs at certain stations? Is there a place for personal-carry EEBDs for certain pers/spaces to have nearby, should the need present itself?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Are those permanent fitment EEBDs at certain stations? Is there a place for personal-carry EEBDs for certain pers/spaces to have nearby, should the need present itself?
Well all EEBD's have carry straps. But normal SOP is to have minimum enough EEBD for how may people normally work in that particular space. So a mess deck with 8 people will have min 8 EEBD's in there somewhere, and OPS that during Action Stations has 12 people will have min 12 EEBD's either beside an exit or your workstation.

There are always extra EEBD's to be found in flats and surge spaces (like MCR) as well. I don't really the exact REQ as written in the Design Specs.

JSS is actually a lot easier to escape then the frigates in a smoke environment. There are doors all over the place and multiple egress points in an emergency. Not everyone will be filling out two or three hatches.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,636
Points
1,040
JSS and AOPs do have massive zones though; proper confinement is going to be critical to prevent loss of massive areas of the ship pretty quickly just from smoke, so there are always tradeoffs when you have multiple egress points. Frigates are actually pretty decent for evacuation routes, and every area has at least two exits.

I'm 100% confident that we'll have to stay on top of the autoclosing doors to prevent people from jerry rigging around the magnetic latches. We already have that issue with escape hatches getting blocked and routes getting cut off by improper storage of equimpent.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
JSS and AOPs do have massive zones though; proper confinement is going to be critical to prevent loss of massive areas of the ship pretty quickly just from smoke, so there are always tradeoffs when you have multiple egress points. Frigates are actually pretty decent for evacuation routes, and every area has at least two exits.

I'm 100% confident that we'll have to stay on top of the autoclosing doors to prevent people from jerry rigging around the magnetic latches. We already have that issue with escape hatches getting blocked and routes getting cut off by improper storage of equimpent.
RCN fire fighting, is different from German Naval (BV) Standards, and different from what Lloyd's Naval Rules expect, and JSS has all three, though the differences are standardized (ie: all magazines are built to BV standards). So its going to be interesting for the first crew figuring out how to attack a fire in every space.
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Some details on the F-110 Frigate being built by Spain. It will be same generation as CSC and has some interesting features. I'm wondering how they are going to do cyber security on a digital twin. I suspect it will be a pull data collection hard drives and replace when it gets into harbor instead of a constant data tether back home, that would be insane bandwidth and EMCON wise.

Also, Indra is just supplying the transceivers for the radar. It's in no way an Indra radar. LM is just ensuring that a local company gets the subcontract to make radar parts.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
659
Points
1,040
Some details on the F-110 Frigate being built by Spain. It will be same generation as CSC and has some interesting features. I'm wondering how they are going to do cyber security on a digital twin. I suspect it will be a pull data collection hard drives and replace when it gets into harbor instead of a constant data tether back home, that would be insane bandwidth and EMCON wise.

Also, Indra is just supplying the transceivers for the radar. It's in no way an Indra radar. LM is just ensuring that a local company gets the subcontract to make radar parts.
Navantia 0-2 scorecard in battles for warship sinkings in the last few years. :):):):)

Cruise ship v OPS
Tanker v Destroyer
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
659
Points
1,040
Navantia 0-2 scorecard in battles for warship sinkings in the last few years. :):):):)

Cruise ship v OPS
Tanker v Destroyer
I know its not really their fault.

The cruise ship v the OPS is funny though.

The battle of Tortuga 2020! (boo wikipedia removed it! it was there)

 

Jacky Tar

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
And FWD gyro, and FWD SIS, and the dive locker, and #1 Sonobuoy stores...
Hell, on ALG at one time we had someone living in the VDS Op compartment for a few days. Though that was more by their choice. Hard to blame them, since the alternative was Fart Central, aka 1 Mess :)
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,496
Points
1,090
Hell, on ALG at one time we had someone living in the VDS Op compartment for a few days. Though that was more by their choice. Hard to blame them, since the alternative was Fart Central, aka 1 Mess :)
Hmm, during OP APOLLO we had a "guest" stay in the fwd alcove of the VLS compartment. Although that was not their choice at all.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630
And more bad news from Australia re. Hunter class:


The Aussie's don't have a great record when it comes to recapitalizing their Navy. I can't think of a single ship in the past 30 years that wasn't either late, or over budget (or both). I never understood why they are held up as a model for Canada to emulate.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
And more bad news from Australia re. Hunter class:


The Aussie's don't have a great record when it comes to recapitalizing their Navy. I can't think of a single ship in the past 30 years that wasn't either late, or over budget (or both). I never understood why they are held up as a model for Canada to emulate.
Mainly because they seem to have all party support, a plan and funding. They know exactly what their "Naval Grand Strategy" is and communicate it very well. I would not hold up their procurement model as amazing. Their "build the hull elsewhere" worked to an extent but they lost out on strategic industrial expertise and are just now recapitalizing that industry with the Hunter Class. They even let their sub expertise lapse.

There is a lot of similarities between us. The NSPS is an Australian idea that we happily copied (permanent ship building to avoid fleet rust out).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Quote from the article:

So, what does the navy require of its surface combatants and will the Hunter be able to deliver it? This is a critical issue in an era where large warships have become a threatened species. Analyst Hugh White recently said, ‘Finding a ship is now a cinch and sinking it is now trivial.’ Some other experts agree.

This has some similarities to the "End of the Tank" arguments.

Australia’s Hobart-class destroyers, equipped with Aegis, SPY-1 radar and 48 VLS cells, are the only non-US ships that participate in CEC. The Hunter is designed to follow in the Hobart’s footsteps and, despite its limited firepower (32 VLS cells), will possess one significant advantage, not only over the Hobart class but over the standard-setting Arleigh Burke as well. The Hunter will employ the fully digital CEAFAR2 active phased-array radar, using leading-edge Australian technology.

I find this a little hilarious and classic Australian. CEAFAR2 is better than a SPY1? No, no it is not. It's different, not better. What CEAFAR is the best at is publicity.
 
Top