• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,040
I don't even bother talking about it anymore. Half the time you just spend 10min arguing about what dirty power actually is...
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,040
Over voltage, under voltage, over frequency, under frequency…just off the top of my head.
lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!

Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS. It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators... Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.

Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets? Any word on their power output? I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060
You can get a lot of dirty power from the grid so lots of sensitive commercial operations have to clean it up. I never had that problem exactly but have gotten some pretty brutal voltage from the grid and even some medium sized DG (300hp) have trouble maintaining a sine wave. I imagine its kinda important on a warship
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,628
Points
1,010
lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!

Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS. It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators... Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.

Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets? Any word on their power output? I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.
Nope- have not had the pleasure.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,628
Points
1,010
Next you'll complain about water and rust flakes mixed in JP8. There's just no pleasing some people.
If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.

JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060
I honestly think the opposite. The power generation a ship can provide on-demand is much greater assuming you have the margins (as we both know, many ships will not). But I agree generally that the only DEW we will be using is focused Electronic Warfare that we already have. UAS large enough to carry ordinance that can hurt the ship can be shot down with an equivalent cost missile. Any UAS that is smaller than that has to get close to do its job, so we can just shoot it down with shells.

At some point in time lasers will be good enough for some applications at close ranges. Right now those systems' best use is their amazing optics and tracking, not their kinetics.

The UAV problem at sea is really straightforward right now. How close is it and how big is it? Then you just treat it like any other aircraft. The real issue is proliferation, not necessarily the solution. A warship is designed from the ground up to detect and shoot down flying things. UAVs are far harder to deal with ashore as they are harder to detect and there are not as many effectors in the area to deal with them effectively right now.
So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?

PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification.

PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)

PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,040
lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!

Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS. It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators... Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.

Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets? Any word on their power output? I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.
The gensets themselves are doing great, the issue will always be in you dump a lot of load on/off a generator it will slow down/speed up. There is an allowed tolerance in the specs for them to settle back down (with min/max frequency variations). Happens a lot less with improved generator reliability but still built into the basic system, and part of the milspec tolerances when you do generator acceptance testing (so you can deal with sudden load surges from battle damage). I can't remeber the actual numbers, but there was some kind of min/max frequency under designated load conditions, like going from 50% to 100%, with a specified max time to hit the normal speed (which has a small +/- anyway).

If new equipment needs 60.0 Hz power and can't handle variation, a, it's a just a bad design to not filter the incoming power. It's really only the CSE equipment that is that sensitive, so really weird to get shock tested fancy new combat gear that doesn't account for real world conditions and the actual power distribtution system. Glad to hear JSS is taking that into account.

IMHO that's not dirty power; that's the system operating within specs. Totally different from when you have AVR or speed control issues, which causes legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts)
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,040
If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.

JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.
JP8 isn't allowed because it doesn't meet the minimum flashpoint for shipboard fuel (60 C). That's a standard marine requirement, and there are all kinds of additional requirements if you want to store fuel below that. It's a non-trivial change that would require a re-design of the storage and transfer system for JP5. It can require a lot of additional infrastructure on the ship that we just don't have room for.

Honestly JP5 availability is the best reason to have AORs, as it's a lot easier to find a POL that meets the marine diesel specs. The number of days I've spent tracking JP5 usage and working with AirO, LogO and CmbtO to plan around that is pretty significant, and we changed port visits and otherwise made sure we RASd with a US tanker way out of our way specifically to get JP5.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?

PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification.

PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)

PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?
My guess is that the 30mm does the bulk of the work on drones inside a 5k envelope? I was under the impression that the reason it was chosen over the 25mm is it's greater elevation/range specifically for that application.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060
"legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts"

This is what we had to deal with from Ontario Hydro from 380 all the way up to 780 I believe. Actually wasn't a problem for us with simple electic motors but I still think the old motors handled all the crap thrown at them better than the new stuff. Of course that new stuff to me is now 20 yrs old. We had capacitor problems for a few months there and that is how I found out what our power input situation was.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,040
So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?

PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification.

PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)

PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?
The response to a UAV will be whatever the response is to an air threat. If it's a long way away then CAMM, ESSM may be the proper response. If it's closer 127mm or 30mm may be the appropriate response. Or maybe the CSC has EW assets that just jam its communications back to base and it's essentially useless until it runs out of fuel.

I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads). ESSM costs about $1.8 million US. So in military terms, they are equal price.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060
The response to a UAV will be whatever the response is to an air threat. If it's a long way away then CAMM, ESSM may be the proper response. If it's closer 127mm or 30mm may be the appropriate response. Or maybe the CSC has EW assets that just jam its communications back to base and it's essentially useless until it runs out of fuel.

I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads). ESSM costs about $1.8 million US. So in military terms, they are equal price.
I am thinking more along the lines of say 9 Harops from a single launcher with a 1000km range and 8 hr endurance and 20kg warhead.

Hard to peg a reliable cost but South Korea paid $500,000 for harpy in 2000.

Depends if its the munition and or the launcher and or controller for a man in the loop or if its running on its AI. So some quote $10 million or $1million or $100,000. $100,000 per munition seems cheap and a $1 million per munitiion seems expensive and 10 million is crazy
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,040
Any "missile" (Harpy is a missile basically) that goes 115mph is literally the easiest thing in the world to shoot down if you detect it. It's propellor driven so it will be detected. Loitering munitions are interesting given their long ranges but normally their payload and their penetration aids are just not good enough in a naval environment.

I suppose they could be used to attrit ammunition, but 115mph is just so damn slow. From detection at the horizon to impact on the ship it's going to be almost 15 minutes! It doesn't maneuver to evade fire, it just flies directly at you. The ship can just sail away and make that take even longer. Hell, a 50cal NRWS could shoot down a Harpy on a closing bearing easily.

I'm even betting that its sensors are not good enough to detect the ship at ranges the ship can detect it. We'll just find it and sail away.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
732
Points
1,060

Any "missile" (Harpy is a missile basically) that goes 115mph is literally the easiest thing in the world to shoot down if you detect it. It's propellor driven so it will be detected. Loitering munitions are interesting given their long ranges but normally their payload and their penetration aids are just not good enough in a naval environment.
Are they going to be super easy to detect though? Especially in a complex environment.
I suppose they could be used to attrit ammunition, but 115mph is just so damn slow. From detection at the horizon to impact on the ship it's going to be almost 15 minutes! It doesn't maneuver to evade fire, it just flies directly at you. The ship can just sail away and make that take even longer. Hell, a 50cal NRWS could shoot down a Harpy on a closing bearing easily.
I'm assuming ammo attrition is one aim.
If it is operator controlled it could try some evasive manouvers? Although I'm guessing this would be subject to jamming and I think operator control is limited to 200km
I would think as slow as it is a ship is still way slower and will not have moved much relative to launch?
Open source says it ceiling is limited to 15000 ft which is the effective horizontal range of the 30mm, correct?
What elevation angle is the 30mm capable of and what altitude would it be effective out to?
I'm even betting that its sensors are not good enough to detect the ship at ranges the ship can detect it. We'll just find it and sail away.
My understanding is they can be
1. flown into target by operator
2. be used in an anti-radiation mode
3. or identify target via AI

Im not trying to be a jerk I'm just genuinely curious and this is the one of the best places to figure out the answer to these questions

I think Israel has sold 3 naval units now to SE Asia so someone envisions a use for them somewhere and somehow.
Shore bombardment? seems unlikely
attacking small surface vessels?
flying them into other aerial targets like missiles or planes? seems redundant
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,187
Points
1,090
If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.

JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.
That actually makes sense - there are limits to the quantity of dangerous and volatile things you can store onboard, and you've probably already maxxed out on that with the supply of NWOs.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,899
Points
1,160
I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads). ESSM costs about $1.8 million US. So in military terms, they are equal price.
Your not, but it's a factor in defense purchase, I don't expect or want a answer, but can we give full missile loads to all our ships plus 2-3 reloads with our current stock?
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,183
Points
1,040
Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.

I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.

Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely easier than in the current generation of warships out there.
I am neither an engineer, but am reminded that, when the OPP developed its first mobile laser for forensic identification purposes in the mid/late1980s, it was mounted on a 3-ton truck which housed its dedicated power supply and cooling system. It now lives in a Pelican box and plugs into a standard outlet. Obviously different power levels and applications, just an illustration on technical advances.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,628
Points
1,010
The gensets themselves are doing great, the issue will always be in you dump a lot of load on/off a generator it will slow down/speed up. There is an allowed tolerance in the specs for them to settle back down (with min/max frequency variations). Happens a lot less with improved generator reliability but still built into the basic system, and part of the milspec tolerances when you do generator acceptance testing (so you can deal with sudden load surges from battle damage). I can't remeber the actual numbers, but there was some kind of min/max frequency under designated load conditions, like going from 50% to 100%, with a specified max time to hit the normal speed (which has a small +/- anyway).

If new equipment needs 60.0 Hz power and can't handle variation, a, it's a just a bad design to not filter the incoming power. It's really only the CSE equipment that is that sensitive, so really weird to get shock tested fancy new combat gear that doesn't account for real world conditions and the actual power distribtution system. Glad to hear JSS is taking that into account.

IMHO that's not dirty power; that's the system operating within specs. Totally different from when you have AVR or speed control issues, which causes legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts)
You are, of course, assuming the stuff in the helicopter was properly milspec’d…
 
Top