• 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
340
Points
880
Thumper81 said:
Well damn.  You could have 28 SM-2's and 16 ESSM's :eek:
The CAAM (Sea Ceptor) will be launched from a six ExLS grouping just aft of the main stack on the fwd top of the modular mission space.  As they are quad packed it means 24 Sea Ceptor.  So add that to the math.

Of course, the loadout will vary based upon the role, mission and whatever the warfare centre models as the best mix based on the threat of the day.

So odd thought given the timing of the sudden influx of CSC info after a long time of silence.  The parliamentary budget committee started examining the CSC program before the pandemic.  Bets on that report is about to come out?
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
12
Points
230
Soon as I saw "extendable" in the system title, I thought immediately of the old Sea Sparrow launching systems on the 280s pre-rebuild.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
635
Points
910
500 million for 100 missiles and Cannisters is quite eye watering. Although that means roughly 6-7 missiles per ship and no reloads.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
254
Points
910
Hold up we are building 15 ships but only ordering 13 VLS systems? Something is not adding up.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Colin P said:
500 million for 100 missiles and Cannisters is quite eye watering. Although that means roughly 6-7 missiles per ship and no reloads.

The onlu ships that ever embark a full load of missiles are those deploying on actual operations, which is typically max 2 ships at a time. Anyone else is either carrying only a few telemetric missiles for trials, or sailing completely empty.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
MilEME09 said:
Hold up we are building 15 ships but only ordering 13 VLS systems? Something is not adding up.
We are ordering 100 SM-2 missiles and 100 cannisters for those 100 missiles. I believe the MK13 is a cannister that goes inside the VLS cell, "and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems" (VLS).

Notice different cannisters for different missiles here:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
340
Points
880
AlexanderM said:
We are ordering 100 SM-2 missiles and 100 cannisters for those 100 missiles. I believe the MK13 is a cannister that goes inside the VLS cell, "and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems" (VLS).

Notice different cannisters for different missiles here:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

This is correct.  We aren't ordering the mk41 VLS.  We are ordering the missiles and their protective/install canisters.  Also this project will be building ships from 2024 to approx 2045.  It would be ridiculous to order all 15 ships of missiles up front, as ammunition has a best before date...

Also the order is now because of a manufacturing window (or so I gather), with a number of NATO and ASEAN countries ordering missiles. Get in while the line is in operation.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
635
Points
910
I get that, but also get that the likelihood of us being able to arm and reload even half our fleet at once will be doubtful. If lasers and guns can down a portion of the likely targets, they very quickly pay for themselves. The 127mm gun is going to be a significant upgrade on the 57mm guns in terms of range and capability.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Underway said:
This is correct.  We aren't ordering the mk41 VLS.  We are ordering the missiles and their protective/install canisters.  Also this project will be building ships from 2024 to approx 2045.  It would be ridiculous to order all 15 ships of missiles up front, as ammunition has a best before date...

Also the order is now because of a manufacturing window (or so I gather), with a number of NATO and ASEAN countries ordering missiles. Get in while the line is in operation.

We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
286
Points
910
Thumper81 said:
We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.

Honest to god that was proposed, until it was pointed out that the 'cells' are effectively just metal shells, and the FCS, controllers, wiring, power supply etc would all need to be overhauled. On top of that, the structural points had 25 years of metal fatigue, and it would have cost more to do NDT then to just build a new cell. Plus storage etc; those things are really big, and it would have cost a lot to remove, maintain and store them. All this to slap them on brand new ships that hadn't even selected any weapons at the time, and had zero desire to pay for any of that.

Fortunately no one wanted to pay for it all, so it was all run through the shredder and we at least got scrap value. Was pretty ridiculous as it would have cost more overall to overhaul the used ones then just buy new, if that's what they decided to do eventually.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
635
Points
910
We could refit some muzzle loaders as well, nothing like a 68lb Cannonade ball to put paid to those pirates  8)

Of course the disbelief on the faces of the crew of a Chinese spy trawler as the Type 26 pulls along side and begins opening her gun ports would almost be worth it.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
340
Points
880
Colin P said:
We could refit some muzzle loaders as well, nothing like a 68lb Cannonade ball to put paid to those pirates  8)

Of course the disbelief on the faces of the crew of a Chinese spy trawler as the Type 26 pulls along side and begins opening her gun ports would almost be worth it.

I'm dead serious. That would be epic.  We will have a modular mission bay... Hmmm....  Just roll up the garage door and blast away.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
635
Points
910
Underway said:
I'm dead serious. That would be epic.  We will have a modular mission bay... Hmmm....  Just roll up the garage door and blast away.

At the very least we should paint the classic black and white gun port scheme on the side.  ;D
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
12
Points
180
Uzlu said:
BAE claims that the Type 26 has a top speed of 26+ knots.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship

FrontLIne Defence appears to be suggesting something different for the Canadian variant.

"Current plans state a top ship speed of 28+ knots"

https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5a/10488-TEAM-LOCKHEED

If the hull will not change, then power must be increased.  Because where is this extra two knots coming from?

From the previous pdf it seems like speed is finally 27 knots. Nevertheless they're so smart as to avoid stating "TOP speed".
Might Alion be right on his claim about speed? Only a few ones will know, I doubt the final figure will ever be public, for obvious reasons (reserved data).
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
286
Points
910
Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.

Not really sure why it matters anyway; the torpedo decoy run assumptions are always a pretty optimistic thought experiment, and a few knots is completely irrelevant when you are looking at super/hypersonic missiles.

It's not like we're running quarter mile races for the pink slip on the ocean (although that would be pretty cool).
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
727
Points
910
Navy_Pete said:
Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.

Not really sure why it matters anyway; the torpedo decoy run assumptions are always a pretty optimistic thought experiment, and a few knots is completely irrelevant when you are looking at super/hypersonic missiles.

It's not like we're running quarter mile races for the pink slip on the ocean (although that would be pretty cool).

I've seen the "2 GT cross con, 100 yard dash" a couple of times in my career and it is an awesome thing standing on the flight deck of a frigate pushing 30kts, deck plates vibrating away, with a massive white wake behind the ship.  Most notably, we RAS'd once on the way out of the Arabian Sea and on our the last day in theatre.  The CO took us away from the RAS at full power and we ran towards the outchop line at full power.  It was pretty fun eating up Nautical Miles that fast!
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
286
Points
910
Yeah, it's pretty fun.  My favourite one was on the 280s, which had a massive rooster tail wake, where I was on deck as the lifebouy sentry or something during a periodic full power trial. There happened to be some dolphins in our area that were playing in our wake as we worked our way up there so it was pretty amazing, and probably my favourite day at sea.

The downside is you could literally watch the analogue tank gauges drop once we got up to a sustained top speed as the old FT4s were not fuel efficient!

The frigates are similarly fun, and it's nice to come up to high speeds on those RAS breakaways and show off a bit, but if you ever do the full power trial with the crashbacks (where you switch from full ahead to full astern) the stopping distance and reversal time for a 5000 tonne ship is surreal.  Even when I was the EO and fully aware that we would have a bunch of work if something went sideways being around the engines at that power was better than a pot of coffee.

Will be sweet to see what the CSC can do; don't really expect it to be any different really then the 280s or CPFs in that performance area, but hard not to enjoy dropping the hammer once in a while and experience the visceral, childlike joy at seeing 50 000+ shaft horse power in action.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
12
Points
180
Navy_Pete said:
Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.
(...)

I fully agree. Just to remind an old and closed dispute.
 
Top