• 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

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
It is a complete assumption that a ship could never find itself in that situation and it's an assumption that should never be made. Furthermore, even in groups, the more capable the better.
 

KawarthaCruiser

Guest
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Oldgateboatdriver said:
They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.

OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
AlexanderM said:
No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.

It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them. 

If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Underway said:
It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them. 

If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.
Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.

Here is the source.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/apar_blk2-v01.pdf

Here is the quote.

APAR Blk2 defends against saturation attacks in the highest
threat scenarios by supporting many simultaneous AAW
and ASuW engagements with both active and semi-active
guidance using ICWI. Firepower is limited only by the rate
of fire by the launcher
. ESSM and SM-2 are supported as
well as ESSM Block2 and the future Standard Missile family
using the JUWL datalink.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
206
Points
730
KawarthaCruiser said:
OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?

That is where the crane is located. Which I never saw in action. :)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
AlexanderM said:
Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.

Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.

It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Underway said:
Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.

It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.
Agree, but this is my argument, not yours. I'm saying that by only using the 16 cells it limits what the ship can deal with and this is even more an issue if a ship has to go through multiple engagements before it can reload. It's better to have additional missiles so that you have more options, this is the whole point.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
29
Points
280
So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?

Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics. 

Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.

To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
43
Points
560
Czech_pivo:

So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

One wonders if some people might, reasonably, think fix is effectively in for LockMart/BAESystems/CAE/MDA/L3:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/canadas-combat-ship-team-bae-systems-cae-lockheed-martin-canada-l3-technologies-mda-and-ultra-electronics-join-forces-to-deliver-canadian-surface-combatant-proposal-300562323.html

This is Canada after all.  Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
156
Points
680
Cdn Blackshirt said:
The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics. 

Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.

To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.

I am not getting where you and AM are coming from on this.

If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.

It is ridiculous. Infantry works in platoons, companies and battalions, supported by air, armour, artillery assets, etc.

What makes you think it is not the same thing of  ships? In my 24 years in the Navy - other than working up our individual ship in the approaches of Halifax or on the Victoria waterfront - here is the number of times I have sailed in ships that were not part of a group: Zero, Nada, None! Warships sail, train, fight and work together as groups. We sail and work with our squadron, we deploy as part of Task Groups or Task forces, with other warships, submarines and air assets in support as required.

And you seem excited at the prospect of "swarming".

It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.

You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.

As to what constitute the appropriate number of missiles to be carried and what type, it's not a guessing game. NATO and individual member nations such as Canada have Operational research cells that game these scenarios, including attempts at saturation attacks, and develop parameters for the minimum, maximum and most useful numbers of "bullets" to be carried. The specs for  new builds are based on such research. 
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Czech_pivo said:
Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

Well technically they could have delivered a bid and just not announced it yet ....however i would not be surprised if they had decided not to bid at all.

I think there is a good chance that they have really been out of the running for years.....It was always questionable whether OMT would be able to compete with the government supported "big guns" like DCNS,Navantia ,BAE, Fincantieri etc. The fact that Odense have not, at least officially, been able to team up with a major Combat Systems integrator , is also an indicator of their disadvantage in this competition. Thales(Netherlands) decision to bid the DZP*
is not likely to have helped either , since they are in a position to deny the competing OMT the use of the dutch AAW sensor package, thus weakening their bid.

*Surprising, since the De Zeven Provinciën design is going to be a quarter century old when the first CSC is planned to hit water.
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Underway said:
Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.

IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.

Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The specs for  new builds are based on such research.

And maybe to a greater extent the budget available .... AD missiles are expensive and very few nations have inventories large enough to fill all available launchers anyway.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
Czech_pivo said:
So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

I'm not entirely sure the FREMM bid is disallowed.  I think they might be submitting a bid through the current rules AND offering this side deal.  Oh what's that?  Don't want the amazing deal?  Ok we'll do it your way.

I'm not at all surprised the Danish group is out.  Guaranteed their bid was not compliant.  Their ships cut plenty of corners with their Mil/Civ standard combinations.  All our ships are moving towards Lloyds Naval Standards for building/maintenance.  Also there is the fact that their system is fairly close to the DZP one, such that it wasn't worth the bid.

MikeKiloPapa said:
IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.

Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.

Few things.  If you can find a modern ASuW missile for $2M you buy it as that's half price (in US dollars) for a Block 3 Exocet.  Secondly I have no doubt that most modern frigates can easily take 6 ASuW missiles if they are spaced out in time enough.  But 6 simultaneously will seriously strain many systems.  And it only takes one squeaker to ruin your day.

Lastly I was referring to light frigates with a loadout of about 16 VLS.  The APAR system is on what is essentially AAW destroyers called frigates for political purposes.  I have no doubt that they can really do some damage with multiple targets in auto engage mode, justifying their costs. Thats where the real AAD is located, not in a light GP frigate (which is essentially what the Halfiax class is now).
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
29
Points
280
Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
Czech_pivo said:
Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?

They don't have a compliant vessel.  Sachesen is old, small (can't carry our helo) and not future proof(ie: no grow margins in the ship, lack of flexibility).  It has significant overlap in sensors with the DZP.  The Baden-Württemberg don't have VLS and would require a significant redesign to get it installed if it would fit at all.  The MKS 180 is still in the early design phase.

 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
156
Points
680
Underway hit it on the nose first.

But it's even worse. The type 125 have been derided as "Large Colonial Corvettes" by some  ;D

They have no ASW capability at all, and very limited last ditch self defence capability only for AAW. They are very heavy in ASuW with SSM, one heavy gun and tons of small caliber ones that give you good all-around coverage against "irregular" surface small raiders.

The German themselves have described the vessels as being developed to serve as command ships/participants for anti-piracy, embargo enforcement, peacemaking or peacekeeping ops.

They are not a type of ship the Canada wants, nor needs.

 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
550
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.

That's actually what the average candidate infantry officer on Phase III(IODP1.1) looks like near the end of course after the attrition has set in....

It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon and I remember hunting 1 x French and 2 x US Carrier Strike Groups down for those kinds of attacks.  The fact that a teenager playing a commercial naval sim figured it out tells me that (1) swarming ain't that novel and (2) professionals are likely looking at it a bit more closely than the teenager.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
156
Points
680
The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.

You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:
 
 
Top