Electronics for 280 replacement

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why add needless costs to designing such a ship when we can get some decent designs off the shelf already? You only increase costs, make it less attractive for other nations to buy the design, cause needless delays in the program, cause needless teething pains for a brand new design, and run the risk of cost overruns.

 

[aesop081]

Edit: If anyone wants to say I am wrong, so right ahead. Perhaps we can scale the thing down a bit by dropping a VLS launcher.

I am not saying you are wrong, not by far, just maybe a little ambitious for a 6000 ton class hull.  Like i said, you are probably looking at a 9000 ton class ( and up) with everything you included.  Droping a single VLS will save you alot of deck space and weight.  I have seen close up both Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers ( flights I, II and IIA) and was impressed at the amount of room needed for the Mk41. Add to that 4 large engines and everything else........As well i think that all inclusive, a vessel much larger that destroyer size is out of reach of the CF's financial abilities ( as far as surface combatants are concerned)

My $0.02

 

[Armymatters]

I am not saying you are wrong, not by far, just maybe a little ambitious for a 6000 ton class hull.  Like i said, you are probably looking at a 9000 ton class ( and up) with everything you included.  Droping a single VLS will save you alot of deck space and weight.  I have seen close up both Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers ( flights I, II and IIA) and was impressed at the amount of room needed for the Mk41. Add to that 4 large engines and everything else........As well i think that all inclusive, a vessel much larger that destroyer size is out of reach of the CF's financial abilities ( as far as surface combatants are concerned)

My $0.02

I understand. Is the size of the Mk41 due to the basic design of the VLS system, as the Chinese VLS is a cold launch rotary system, where the missile is ejected first then the rocket fires, and the Mk41 is a hot-launch system? Is there any other NATO VLS system that is smaller yet packs the same number (48 missiles) of missiles that I am not aware of?

 

[Melbatoast]

- MK46 torpedoes replaced through fleet with Mk50 or MK54 LHT torpedo (either one of those torpedos can be fired out of current platforms and torpedo tubes)

The Mk.50 completed its production run years ago (1996 according to Janes UWS) and is being phased out.  It's dangerous to store anywhere due to the oddball propulsion system.  It was also ridiculously expensive - it was developed during the Baroque period of the Cold War after all (the mid 1980s).  The LHT is probably going to be our replacement.  I don't know how that works, whether you can stick a Mk.54 warhead and sensor package on an existing Mk.46 body, or what.

 

[aesop081]

I understand. Is the size of the Mk41 due to the basic design of the VLS system, as the Chinese VLS is a cold launch rotary system, where the missile is ejected first then the rocket fires, and the Mk41 is a hot-launch system? Is there any other NATO VLS system that is smaller yet packs the same number (48 missiles) of missiles that I am not aware of?

Yes the Mk41 is a "hot" launch system, here is a good picture of the launch:

http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/gra_mk41.htm

 

[SweetNavyJustice]

Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy. 

If this is meant as more of a "fantasy navy" kind of concept, then hell throw all the kit you can imagine on there! 

On a more practical level, I would like to see a bigger gun perhaps with some ERGM's (Extended Range Guided Muntions for those not in the know).  For an SSM I'd like to see the SS-N-27.  You have to give it up to the Russians when it comes to producing what I personally consider to be some of the best weapons out there.  As for a radar, we should be using a 3D phased array system.  Not for it's AGEIS benefits but from a continuous tracking advantage. 

Just my 2cents.

 

[Armymatters]

Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy. 

If this is meant as more of a "fantasy navy" kind of concept, then hell throw all the kit you can imagine on there! 

On a more practical level, I would like to see a bigger gun perhaps with some ERGM's (Extended Range Guided Muntions for those not in the know).  For an SSM I'd like to see the SS-N-27.  You have to give it up to the Russians when it comes to producing what I personally consider to be some of the best weapons out there.  As for a radar, we should be using a 3D phased array system.  Not for it's AGEIS benefits but from a continuous tracking advantage. 

Just my 2cents.

We also sail around with American carrier groups as well. And since a carrier is a HVU, and most of the US carrier escorts (except the Perry class frigates) have the Aegis combat system, interoperability with American units will be greatly enhanced. Also, talk of a LHD purchase for the CF means that for us, a LHD is a HVU as well.

With Tomahawk, all I am suggesting is that the software and hardware to launch Tomahawk be there, not that we are going to buy Tomahawk's. We may never fire a Tomahawk at a target in anger, but that capability would be very nice to have if situations show up requires that we need some form of land attack missile.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Some people in the posts have suggested AGEIS system.  I don't see this as a necessity for Canada.  We don't really ever sail around in battle group formation looking to protect an HVU (unless it's the tanker.....).  Our ships (considering our role) don't need a link based central control CCS system for a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  Some goes for the suggestions for the Tomahawk.  Considering our latest White paper, and our general role as a navy, do we really need a land attack missile?  It's just not within our scope as a navy.

We might not need AEGIS but we do need some sort of 3D system...have you ever seen what a 3D system can do? As for not protection an HVU other then the tanker, not sure where you get your info but as part of Coaltion Ops for the past dozen years we habe helped protect carriers to LHAs. You are out of your league when you said we don't need Link, what do you think we use to pass critical info? Ummm hello, since the 70s we have been using Link. Since we are going into the role of amphib ops we will need some sort of SSM whether HarpponII or  TAcTom. give your head a shake.

 

[SweetNavyJustice]

We also sail around with American carrier groups as well. And since a carrier is a HVU, and most of the US carrier escorts (except the Perry class frigates) have the Aegis combat system, interoperability with American units will be greatly enhanced.

So you think our ideal ships would be ones that would allow us to turn our autonomy over to the Americans?  Keep in mind that we are also part of NATO so should we adopt a common AGEIS style system with all the NATO nations so they could take over our systems in a time of battle?  

There is a merit to what you're saying but there is need for us to have a greater autonomy in being able to control our own ships weapon systems.  Link provides for a common picture and integrates us into the battle picture and problem.  We don't need a system that turns control of our weapons over to another nation.  Whether we are integrated with them in a battle group or not.

With Tomahawk, all I am suggesting is that the software and hardware to launch Tomahawk be there, not that we are going to buy Tomahawk's. We may never fire a Tomahawk at a target in anger, but that capability would be very nice to have if situations show up requires that we need some form of land attack missile.

This would be like the kid who carries a knife to school "just in case".  Again, Tomahawks would be a nice to have...sure....but given what our role is as a navy I'm just saying there isn't a need for them.  The Canadian navy IMHO (and according to our White paper) isn't meant to take a fight to another country.  Accordingly, we don't need "offensive" weapons.  All that being said IF we wanted this capability all we would need to do is upgrade our Harpoons and the command moduels. There really isn't a need for a new missile.

 

[SweetNavyJustice]

We might not need AEGIS but we do need some sort of 3D system...have you ever seen what a 3D system can do?

 

As I already said

As for a radar, we should be using a 3D phased array system.  Not for it's AGEIS benefits but from a continuous tracking advantage.

As for not protection an HVU other then the tanker, not sure where you get your info but as part of Coaltion Ops for the past dozen years we habe helped protect carriers to LHAs.

I've sailed in the gulf as an FCS when we were part of a fully integrated unit for a BG so I'm fairly aware about coaliton ops.....  My comment was directed toward CANADIAN operations, not as us trying to be part of the USN!  I don't see that as our role.  I understand how a number of people think this might be our role considering many of our main experiences have been while sailing integrated in BG's, but if we're considering a new CANADIAN ship I don't think we need to look at how we can be better assimilated into the USN. 

You are out of your league when you said we don't need Link, what do you think we use to pass critical info?

Again, I was talking about the AGEIS system.  My comment went on to say that we don't need a link system that is a "one ship fight the battle" piece of software.  All respect, but you're out of your league if you don't understand the difference between our link sys and that of AGEIS. 

Since we are going into the role of amphib ops we will need some sort of SSM whether HarpponII or  TAcTom. give your head a shake.

Give my head a shake?  If you're launching in Harpoon 1E/F's.  The Harpoon II's are for littoral use (mainly) and not for land attack.  Also, during a land attack your not exactly going to be landing your troops during the engagement.  When was the last time you saw a troop landing during a Tomahawk strike?  Let me tell you in case you have some misconception.  You don't!

 

[NavyShooter]

I vote to skip on the torpedo tubes, and put a few ASROCs in the VLS cells.

By the time a sub's close enough for us to engage with a ship fired torp....we're in trouble.

NS

 

[Armymatters]

Ok, taking all the suggestions, here is the revised specifications:

Crew requirements:
- Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel

Weapons:
- Capability for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile fitted (but no missiles installed), so that if needed in emergency, Tomahawk's can be loaded onboard and fired as needed
- 48 Standard II missiles
- 1 MK41 VLS launcher
- MK54 LHT torpedoes (or ASROC in VLS)
- RAM installation on bow
- Phalanx 1B installation on stern
- 1 OTO-Melara 76mm gun
- 8 Harpoon missile launchers
- 2-4 Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns
- 4 x MK 32 torpedo launchers

Future Expansion:
- Additional deck space for future weapons suites to be intergrated (expandability and upgradability is a good idea for the future)

Countermeasures:
- SeaGnat decoy system self defense + RAM/CIWS
- 2 SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoys
- FL 1800 S II ECM suite (as in F124 Sachen frigates)

Engines:
- CODAG (Combined diesel and gas) for higher speed cruise
- 2 GE LM2500 gas turbines or 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 engines for high speed operations
- 1 MTU V20 diesel cruise engine
- High automation for engine room, reducing crew size

Sensors:
- CANTASS sonar suite
- Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system
- Mini-UAV launch capability
- Lockheed AN/SPY-1D radar  (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) if Aegis equipped, or Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L air/surface search, plus) or BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search)
- Thales Scout navigation radar

Communication:
- NATO Link 16 and Link 11/22 communications system

Displacement:
- 6500 tons (much bigger than Halifax, and Tribals)

Aviation:
- Hangar space for 2 CH-148 Cyclone's
- Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6, big enough to handle 15 ton helo
- Beartrap

Design:
- X form design (stealthy design) as in MEKO A family frigates
- Elmination of the funnel, instead using exhaust system found in MEKO A class frigates (They operate as stated: A reduction of about 75% on the ship's infrared signature has been achieved by elimination of the funnel, and instead hot exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system. Seawater is injected into the exhaust duct to cool the exhaust fumes, before being expelled just above the waterline.)
      - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
- Enclosed mast
- In short, design is very clean, and stealthy

Command and Control:
- Preferably Aegis combat system

Endurance:
- 3 weeks

Edit: Yes, I spent a bit too much time chew on the radars... otherwise, I think I have everything down pat.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Ok, taking all the suggestions, here is the revised specifications:

Crew requirements:
- Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel

Endurance:
- 3 weeks

In both of your specification lists you have started with crew size.  Have you developed a chart that details if that is sufficient to maintain and operate all of these systems?

What mission profile do you base a "3 week endurance" on?

 

[Armymatters]

In both of your specification lists you have started with crew size.  Have you developed a chart that details if that is sufficient to maintain and operate all of these systems?

What mission profile do you base a "3 week endurance" on?

I based my crew size by using crew sizes for ships of a similar tonnage, and mission profile (AAW multirole destroyer/frigate). I am also trying to automate as many ship functions as possible (for example, with propulsion, the system will be automated to the point where nobody is actually required in the engine room, taking the cue from the Thetis class patrol frigates). I am considering the Burkes to the upper end of crew size (346 officers and crew) (even though the Burke is 3000 tons bigger than my proposed design), with the Alvaro de Bazán class frigate as my lower end of the crew size (240 officers and crew) (closer to my specification's actual job and size).

The mission profile will require that the ship last 3 weeks out at sea patroling either by themselves or in a task group. The ship should have enough space for provisions for a mission that long without replentishment.

If I made any fundamentally wrong assumptions, please, do tell me, and how to correct it.

Edit: In any case, this design is fundamentally more capable than the Iroquois destroyers it is replacing, and probally be capable than the Halifax class frigates on paper.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Maximizing automated systems?  Weren't you arguing against tank autoloaders in another thread?

Ah yes, here it is one such comment found on a search of "auto loaders" by Armymatters:

I have, but I still have misgivings over an autoloader in a tank.

But you'd maximize automation of systems in something as complex as a warship?  We're not talking about putting a cruise ship on auto-pilot here. Have you given any consideration at all to the complications that might arise from, Oh!, perhaps enemy ection that could require many simultaneous human interactions for troubleshooting and ship survival along with combat operations, activities that might rwquire something more proactive than a programmed system?

Three weeks operation may work for piont to point missions, but what about station-keeping or extended combat operations?  Perhaps one of the experienced sailors can address modern mission durations.

 

[Armymatters]

Maximizing automated systems?  Weren't you arguing against tank autoloaders in another thread?

Ah yes, here it is one such comment found on a search of "auto loaders" by Armymatters:

But you'd maximize automation of systems in something as complex as a warship?  We're not talking about putting a cruise ship on auto-pilot here. Have you given any consideration at all to the complications that might arise from, Oh!, perhaps enemy ection that could require many simultaneous human interactions for troubleshooting and ship survival along with combat operations, activities that might rwquire something more proactive than a programmed system?

Three weeks operation may work for piont to point missions, but what about station-keeping or extended combat operations?  Perhaps one of the experienced sailors can address modern mission durations.

I acknowledge that in some roles, a computer may in fact be more suitable for the job than a human person. Managing the propulsion system is one of those tasks where automation would make sense (naturally, there will be a small number of engine specialists onboard for maintainence while at sea and monitoring the propulsion system).

I am not suggesting we make the entire ship fully automatic, I am only suggesting that in some areas, it would make sense, with perhaps a small number of human crew as backup. The actual shooting will be controlled by both computers and human beings.

I also have some misgivings over the endurance time period, but from the looks of other comparable designs, 3 weeks appears to be the norm without resupply (although how long the ship can last until it runs out of fuel is a totally different manner). I would too like to hear from someone who is more experienced regarding mission durations.

Edit: From the looks of it, I am right now bang on in terms of crew size, in fact I may even have too much crew members. This is my conjecture.
Edit 2: This is really starting to become a good mental exercise as well, trying to figure this all out.

 

[Inch]

Aviation:
- Hangar space for 2 CH-148 Cyclone's
- Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6, big enough to handle 15 ton helo
- Beartrap

2 Cyclones eh? I've landed on a Ticonderoga and we had to land diagonal across the deck because their flight deck isn't big enough for a Sea King. The Cyclone will be similar in size. I don't think you realize how big a helo actually is, start with 70 ft long with rotors turning, then add 15 ft for clearance from the hangar and you need a flight deck that's 85 ft long, minimum. An awful lot of space for one helo, now what are you going to do with the second? You certainly wouldn't be able to operate them concurrently, you'd need a flight deck that was over 100 ft wide.

As for Sea State 6, is that Beaufort scale? If it is that's weak. The most sea state I've flown in was 7m swells with up to 20 degrees of roll.

Beaufort Scale Sea State 6: 22-27kts  Strong Breeze  Large waves begin to form; the white foam crests are more extensive everywhere. Probably some spray. 

Again you're showing your inexperience with how things work. You make no mention of a hauldown, only a bear trap, do you know how it works?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No, he's letting you do the work for him...........

....hopefully some guy named "Inch" will at least be a footnote/reference.

 

[Armymatters]

Bruce, this is conjectural ship design is hereby named The Army.ca Iroquois Destroyer Replacement Design.

In short, we are all laying down the specs together, and I am trying to make them all fit together (with tons of help from you all).

So, so far, the specs are as follows:

Crew requirements:
- Crew of 270 total crew, with space for an additional 50 personnel

Weapons:
- Capability for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile fitted (but no missiles installed), so that if needed in emergency, Tomahawk's can be loaded onboard and fired as needed
        - I am seeing that Tomahawk can be fitted in the MK41 VLS, which is present in our design, so all we need is the software and the associated minor hardware to fire it
- 48 Standard II missiles
- 1 MK41 VLS launcher
- MK54 LHT torpedoes (or ASROC in VLS)
- RAM installation on bow
- Phalanx 1B installation on stern
- 1 OTO-Melara 76mm gun
- 8 Harpoon missile launchers
- 2-4 Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm guns or Mauser MLG 27 27mm guns
- 4 x MK 32 torpedo launchers

Future Expansion:
- Additional deck space for future weapons suites to be intergrated (expandability and upgradability is a good idea for the future)

Countermeasures:
- SeaGnat decoy system self defense + RAM/CIWS
- 2 SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo decoys
- FL 1800 S II ECM suite (as in F124 Sachen frigates)

Engines:
- CODAG (Combined diesel and gas) for higher speed cruise
- 2 GE LM2500 gas turbines or 2 Rolls Royce MT-30 engines for high speed operations (leaning more towards GE for fleet commonality, but the RR engine is very promising)
- 1 MTU V20 diesel cruise engine
- High automation for engine room, reducing crew size
- 4 x 1000KW generators

Sensors:
- CANTASS sonar suite
- Thales Sirius IRST long-range infra-red surveillance and tracking system
- Mini-UAV launch capability
- Lockheed AN/SPY-1D radar  (with Raytheon SPS-67 surface search, and AN/SPG-62 fire control radar) if Aegis equipped, or Thales APAR (with Thales SMART-L air/surface search, plus) or BAE SAMPSON (with BAE S1850M air/surface search)
- Thales Scout navigation radar

Communication:
- NATO Link 16 and Link 11/22 communications system

Displacement:
- 6500 tons (much bigger than Halifax, and Tribals) full load

Aviation:
- Hangar space for 1 CH-148 Cyclone
- Flight deck certified for operations in Sea State 6 (Pierson - Moskowitz Sea Spectrum), so that means a max of 20ft waves, 33kt winds
- Big enough to handle 15 ton helo
- Beartrap-type device for haul down (RAST) as in Halifax (provided by Indal Technologies of Ontario)

Design:
- X form design (stealthy design) as in MEKO A family frigates (no right angles)
- Elmination of the funnel, instead using exhaust system found in MEKO A class frigates (They operate as stated: A reduction of about 75% on the ship's infrared signature has been achieved by elimination of the funnel, and instead hot exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system. Seawater is injected into the exhaust duct to cool the exhaust fumes, before being expelled just above the waterline.)
      - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
- Enclosed mast
- In short, design is very clean, and stealthy
- To give a frame of reference as to how big it is and how it will look, think of the French/Italian Horizon class frigates, but remove the funnels, and the extra 76mm gun and center the remaining gun (how the mast will look will depend on the radar chosen)

Command and Control:
- Preferably Aegis combat system

Endurance:
- 3 weeks provision (?)

Feel more than free to further critique the design some more. Frankly put it, any criticism is welcomed to help improve the design.

 

[aesop081]

As for Sea State 6, is that Beaufort scale? If it is that's weak. The most sea state I've flown in was 7m swells with up to 20 degrees of roll.

Absolutely right !!  In fact i was bobing around in a 10-man life raft during my sea survival course at sea state 5 to 6..........nothing to worry about.

2 Cyclones eh? I've landed on a Ticonderoga and we had to land diagonal across the deck because their flight deck isn't big enough for a Sea King. The Cyclone will be similar in size. I don't think you realize how big a helo actually is, start with 70 ft long with rotors turning, then add 15 ft for clearance from the hangar and you need a flight deck that's 85 ft long, minimum. An awful lot of space for one helo, now what are you going to do with the second? You certainly wouldn't be able to operate them concurrently, you'd need a flight deck that was over 100 ft wide.

The Ticonderoga were designed to carry LAMPS-III helos ( aka SH-60) which are considerable smaller than you CH-124.  Our 280 destroyers can carry 2 CH-124s can they not ?

Again you're showing your inexperience with how things work. You make no mention of a hauldown, only a bear trap, do you know how it works?

Thats why his name is armymatters....not navymatters or airforcematters