Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Dig this:
Mark
Ottawa
...
The fastest destroyers of World War II actually entered service during the mid 1930s. These destroyers were the Le Fantasque class of France. The Le Fantasque class were designed to operate with France’s high speed battleship and cruiser forces. To perform in this role, the Le Fantasque class needed to equip powerful engines in a large hull for the nessacary speed and seaworthiness.
Six ships of this class were built, consisting of the ships Le Fantasque, Le Malin, Le Terrible, L’Indomptable, L’Audacieux, and Le Triopmhant. Though the ships were large, exceeding 430′ (132m) in length, they carried a correspondingly large powerplant. The destroyers could produce up to 81,000shp, enough to propel the ships to speeds of 45 knots. This not only made them the fastest destroyers of World War II, but the fastest destroyers of all time!..
https://www.navygeneralboard.com/the-fastest-warships-of-world-war-2/
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 5,256
- Points
- 1,040
That's a neat piece of history, thanks.
Also, awesome names and probably had bad ass crests and motos.
Loved the CHA, but not going to lie, it's an embarassingly lame name for a warship. 'Le Terrible', Le Triomphant etc all sound fight-y at least.
Also, awesome names and probably had bad ass crests and motos.
Loved the CHA, but not going to lie, it's an embarassingly lame name for a warship. 'Le Terrible', Le Triomphant etc all sound fight-y at least.
- Reaction score
- 4,647
- Points
- 1,040
As stated earlier top speed is pretty arbitrary. New ship hulls have generally lower top speeds then historical designs... on a flat calm day in the English channel. Current ship designs retain their speed in all weather conditions better. A modern frigate with a top speed of 30kts can do that speed over a larger range of sea states than a WWII hull form of similar tonnage.
As for the tactical applications of top speed, its critical for a number of subsurface and surface warfare situations. Top speed doesn't generally have a strategic impact, though cruising speed certainly does.
As for the tactical applications of top speed, its critical for a number of subsurface and surface warfare situations. Top speed doesn't generally have a strategic impact, though cruising speed certainly does.
- Reaction score
- 4,647
- Points
- 1,040
Uzlu said:
That's a good article. I like how Xavier picks out the uniqueness of the design, which gives me a bit of pride, like the Halifax Class does. We build too our own requirements. One thing I did not know was that no other surface navy uses tomahawks. I thought for sure at least the Aussies or the Korean's did. Learn something new every day!
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Underway said:
But:
Mark
Ottawa
Navy_Pete said:
Those names took me back to the late 18th century ships of the line...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Fantasque_(1758)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Triomphant_(1779)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Terrible_(1780)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Audacieux_(1784)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Indomptable_(1789)
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Now look what the Italians are planning to get, first in 2028 (!) after their FREMMs and PPA Class Multi-Purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels (https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ppa-class-multi-purpose-offshore-patrol-vessels/):
Mark
Ottawa
Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery
Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
After building 10 FREMM-class frigates — the same type acquired by the United States — as well as designing new 4,500-ton multimission ships, a 33,000-ton landing helicopter dock and new logistics vessels, a risk-reduction study is due to start on two 10,000-ton destroyers dubbed DDX.
“Destroyers are fundamental for a blue water fleet like Italy’s, which must be capable of projecting capability at sea and from the sea while operating across the whole spectrum of maritime and joint operations,” Vice Adm. Aurelio De Carolis, deputy chief of staff of the Italian Navy, told Defense News.
“Apart from carriers, amphibious vessels and submarines, you need destroyers with land strike and task group-protection capabilities,” he added.
The Navy wants the 175-meter-long vessels to replace two aging destroyers, the ITS Durand de la Penne and ITS Mimbelli. Those two vessels entered service in the early 1990s and were joined in service by Italy’s two more recent Horizon-class ships, which the Navy classifies as destroyers.
“We have always had two pairs of destroyers in service, dating back to the 1960s,” De Carolis said.
With €4.5 million (U.S. $5.3 million) budgeted so far for two-year feasibility and risk-reduction studies starting early next year, the Navy aims to have a final operational requirement by 2022, sign a construction contract in 2023 — funding permitting — complete the design in 2025, and receive the first ship by 2028.
Current plans envisage vessels that are 24 meters wide with a 9-meter draft and more than 300 crew, while offering a top speed of over 30 knots using the CODOGAL (COmbined Diesel Or Gas And eLectric) propulsion system [emphasis added, that Ferrari DNA], De Carolis said. The system allows the use of either gas or diesel turbines, plus electric propulsion for lower speeds.
Italy is renewing its Navy amid the Mediterranean Sea’s shift from a backwater to a tinderbox as Turkey throws its weight around, Libya remains tense after years of conflict and Russia tries to increase its regional influence.
When fully budgeted, the ships likely will be built by Italian state firm Fincantieri, keeping the yard busy after a run of recent naval construction thanks to Italy’s $6.3 billion so-called Naval Law in 2014 that led to the landing helicopter dock (LHD), multimission vessels (PPA) and logistic ship programs.
Equipping the warship
Long-range firepower for the destroyers will be guaranteed by six eight-cell missile launchers for a total of 48 cells, with two launchers toward the bow (ahead of the bridge) and the remainder amidships [emphasis added].
Aster anti-air missiles, already in use on other Italian vessels, will be adopted, as well as a land-strike missile. “The Navy needs a credible land-strike capability and we are considering options now,” De Carolis said.
That could lead the Navy to consider MBDA’s naval variant of the Scalp missile. What is confirmed is the acquisition of the European consortium’s Teseo Mk2 Evolved anti-ship missile, which the admiral said offers “land-strike capability in the littoral.” The weapon will be fired from launchers located immediately behind the bridge, he confirmed.
A rear helicopter deck and hangar will be able to host two Navy EH101 or two SH90 helicopters.
The ship’s cannons will be the same Italian-built types that have become standard issue for Italy’s naval vessels in recent years. A Leonardo 127mm gun at the front of the vessel will fire the firm’s Vulcano guided munitions, while two Leonardo 76mm guns at the center of the vessel will fire the guided Dart munition, again developed by the Italian firm.
A third 76mm gun sits astride the helicopter hangar at the rear of the ship. Dubbed “Sovraponte” and built to be positioned on top of ship structures, the cannon was first developed for the PPA vessels [emphasis added]. “We are satisfied with Sovraponte,” the admiral said [read on]...
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/CIXVXECBYZHIVJ5V353KGZV3LU.jpg)
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/09/italy-plans-new-destroyers-for-2028-delivery/
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 838
- Points
- 1,060
Kilted said:
Can we have a French translation in Aisle 4 please?
- Reaction score
- 3,392
- Points
- 1,160
CloudCover said:
Le Frigatty McFrigface.
#MerciHighSchoolFrenchClass
- Reaction score
- 4,647
- Points
- 1,040
Dimsum said:
They do. RAM also replaces gun-based CIWS on many ships. It also has a much shorter max range than Sea Ceptor.
I'm confident the decision to use Sea Ceptor was based heavily on modeling, simulation, and doctrine studies at the Warfare Centre (which is a NATO Gold Medal Facility). If Sea Ceptor is the choice over another option it's because it's data-driven. That doesn't mean the other options are bad, just the Sea Ceptor was better in our particular fleet organization, sensors, and other defensive options.
An example of this is that Sea Ceptor doesn't have firing arcs (that is to say it has a 360-degree firing arc). A RAM or Phalanx system would, necessitating maneuver or multiple mounts to cover all angles. With the speed missiles can go and the anticipated introduction of hypervelocity missiles maneuver is probably out of the question. A system that can shoot in any direction while not taking up that prime real estate topside is valuable.
- Reaction score
- 12,960
- Points
- 1,010
The CSC is an impressive ship. If we get 15 of these, as designed, the RCN will be a world beater.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,170
- Points
- 1,160
SeaKingTacco said:
Same tonnage as WWII light Cruiser, armed to the teeth, except I am not clear on what AAW armament will it have? I will be stoked if we get all 15 and armed as mentioned.
FSTO
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,714
- Points
- 1,210
While I was in quarantine at Trenton I sent a fairly detailed email to the Deputy Commander RCN on how we could go about naming all the CSCs after the indigenous people of Canada. Call it Tribals 3.0.Kilted said:
I got a fairly positive reply and he was going to forward it to the Ships Naming Committee. His wife is Metis and she liked the idea as well.
I've heard crickets since but my glass half full attitude is that the RCN is doing the background work to get permissions from the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities before going public with anything. Tribal or named after prominent Matriarchs/Patriarchs would work for me as well.
- Reaction score
- 4,647
- Points
- 1,040
FSTO said:
I would love this. My only dislike is that Haida wouldn't be available, as the name is still currently in commission for the ceremonial flagship. Would have loved to see HMCS Haida sailing around doing the business again. My other vote would be for Canadian mythological creatures. HMCS Wendigo would win the cool name award.
Colin P said:
AAW will be a combination of Sea Ceptor, ESSM II and SM2 MkIII. Because the ESSM and SM2 would be placed in the VLS on the foc'sle those numbers may vary depending on the mission/threat. The main AAW weapon however would be the SM2. ESSM is good as "point defence" not area defense. You can help a buddy who's close but its like the infield compared to the entire ballpark that is SM2.
I would expect a standard loadout would be 24 Sea Ceptors (as their launchers are dedicated to them), 24 ESSM (taking up 8 VLS as they are quad packed) and then 24 SM2. If you were carrying tomahawks of course the SM2 numbers might be reduced to as low as 16. That's speculation though, you could mix and match all those VLS numbers for your mission. You could specialize in the role for the task group. One CSC as a dedicated land attack platform carries all the tomahawks and the other three carry the SM2's to protect it.
I'm not entirely sure what capability the 127mm has for air warfare, I think its advertised as having some, but with its rate of fire/traverse I would suspect that it's not considered a viable option for anything other than slow moving targets.
