Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Dunk_Master_Flex

Canadian Surface Combatant, which design is ideal?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles

Hey everybody, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with modern warships but I'm curious about something.

Given the Canadian Surface Combatant project to replace our Halifax class frigates and the decommissioned Iroquois class destroyers has just finalized the approved designs, I want to get some other opinions. The British Type 26, Dutch De Zeven Provinciën and Spanish F-105 frigates were all accepted for future review. On paper, the Dutch and Spanish offerings seem relatively reasonable, both having the capacity to provide ASW and air defense due to their fair number of VLS cells.

However, the designs are relatively old. Mind you not very old however, not spring chickens. The Type 26 however worries me. It has a relatively low number of VLS cells and given it's large tonnage which worries me. I'm aware future proofing is a good thing however, the ships seem extremely empty in the capacity department compared to the other offerings.

The Type 26 is the newest of the offerings but it's also untested. Given the state of British shipbuilding as of late, I'm hesitant to say the process will go smoothly, especially after crossed with Canadian shipbuilding/procurement and that mess.

 

5b58e6672bb62_image(8).thumb.jpg.70e2d06cbfdfd114dac3e37aa9b66ed0.jpg

The submitted Type 26 variant, note the very small VLS complement compared to her size. 

Edited by Dunk_Master_Flex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles

Wasn't there a rumour or plans that were quickly scraped for 2x LHP, LHA, or LHD? 1 for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets?

TBH, considering our National stance I'm surprised we only have on order 1x AOR. Unless I misread the news for the RCN support "fleet". 

As for purchasing from other Nations I'd hope for home grown or a Commonwealth association design. But I'm not to sure the Drydock capabilities available. I know we cannot support ships the size of Cruisers. Also that our roles within NATO are more towards the functionality of Destroyers and Frigates. 

I just hope that the gov't remembers that protection of our waters, land, and airspace  is equally important Physically with Sailors, Soldiers, and Pilots in their A.O. as it is diplomatically across the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
Alpha Tester
5,035 posts
2,431 battles
42 minutes ago, GuntherPrein said:

We will get screwed over no matter what because the libtards cant do anything good for defense.. 

Save the toxicity for a political subreddit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[HELLS]
Members
1,702 posts
15,518 battles

De Zeven Provicien , suitably updated for sensors and weapons loadout, is the best option depite her age. The Dutch build excellent ships. The T-26 is a one-shot wonder with a weak missile loadout and sensor suite IMHO. Don't even talk about a Daring, they just don't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

Ship selection doesn't matter if the Canucks aren't willing to spend the money needed to have enough of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
315
[DIEBL]
Members
1,413 posts
14,562 battles
On 26.07.2018 at 1:09 AM, 1Sherman said:

Save the toxicity for a political subreddit.

nothing toxic about the truth

On 26.07.2018 at 1:27 AM, TornadoADV said:

Ship selection doesn't matter if the Canucks aren't willing to spend the money needed to have enough of them.

you got that right we wont even have 1 ship before next election

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
Alpha Tester
5,035 posts
2,431 battles
1 minute ago, GuntherPrein said:

nothing toxic about the truth

I'm fairly certain the word "libtard" is plenty toxic. Also, you don't exactly need a big military when most of the world likes you. It's a little something called "soft power".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,186
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,798 posts
10,299 battles
38 minutes ago, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

Given the Canadian Surface Combatant project to replace our Halifax class frigates and the decommissioned Iroquois class destroyers has just finalized the approved designs, I want to get some other opinions. The British Type 26, Dutch De Zeven Provinciën and Spanish F-105 frigates were all accepted for future review.

Depends on the overall balance requirement for ASW and AAW.

The Type 26 is probably the best ASW platform of the 3 choices, but one of the weaker AAW options, and it's certainly expensive.

The CSC is intended to replace what was 13 Halifax class primarily ASW ships and 4 Iroquois GP/AA destroyers. Canada's previous fleet mix has not been strong on the dedicated AAW fleet and as the navy operates minimal expeditionary capability and is most likely to slot in with NATO allies or carry out constabulary tasks this may not be critical.

The British variant has a 12-cell launcher for the Sea Ceptor, quad packed for 48 total. It also has a 24-cell strike length VLS capable of chucking a wide range of munitions. 36 cells is far from fantastic but it gives pretty decent self-defense and with SM-2's regional defense capability.

That compares positively to the 16x ESSM of the 13x Halifax or 32 SM-2 of the 4x Iroquois. A buy of 15 T-26's would be a quantum leap on AAW. I'm not entirely sure what the Canadian T-26 is proposed to be equipped with sensor wise.

 

The Alvaro de Bazan has a probably superior AAW sensor fit with the SPY-1D, though that system is looking to be replaced in some US use with the AMDR plus, a 48 cell VLS is the biggest of the 3 by far.

The DZP has 40 VLS cells, not a significant improvement on the CSC, but she does have the APAR and SMART-L radar.

 

If you want ASW as a priority + some AA and you like a flexible mission bay giving some future proofing and better feel-good media opportunities then the T-26 is the best choice. However, it will cost, maybe $1bn apiece depending on exact fit, build etc.

If you want more AAW and more commonality with US kit, then the AdB looks good. However the Australian variant ended up costing a heck of a lot. Maybe they'll work out ok.

The DZP is a decent all-rounder and $800m looks attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
315
[DIEBL]
Members
1,413 posts
14,562 battles
2 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

I'm fairly certain the word "libtard" is plenty toxic. Also, you don't exactly need a big military when most of the world likes you. It's a little something called "soft power".

tell that too Russia in 25 years and the whole world likes Canada for what exactly????

Edited by GuntherPrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
On 26.07.2018 at 12:32 AM, Ivlerlin said:

Wasn't there a rumour or plans that were quickly scraped for 2x LHP, LHA, or LHD? 1 for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets?

TBH, considering our National stance I'm surprised we only have on order 1x AOR. Unless I misread the news for the RCN support "fleet". 

As for purchasing from other Nations I'd hope for home grown or a Commonwealth association design. But I'm not to sure the Drydock capabilities available. I know we cannot support ships the size of Cruisers. Also that our roles within NATO are more towards the functionality of Destroyers and Frigates. 

I just hope that the gov't remembers that protection of our waters, land, and airspace  is equally important Physically with Sailors, Soldiers, and Pilots in their A.O. as it is diplomatically across the phone.

We planned on purchasing the two Mistral class ships from France however, political kickball meant Egypt snatched them first. We have one AOR operational with two ordered. 

On 26.07.2018 at 1:27 AM, TornadoADV said:

Ship selection doesn't matter if the Canucks aren't willing to spend the money needed to have enough of them.

We're ready to drop upwards of $42 billion on a 15~ ship class, money isn't the issue, a broken and stagnant procurement system is.

On 26.07.2018 at 1:51 AM, mofton said:

Depends on the overall balance requirement for ASW and AAW.

The Type 26 is probably the best ASW platform of the 3 choices, but one of the weaker AAW options, and it's certainly expensive.

The CSC is intended to replace what was 13 Halifax class primarily ASW ships and 4 Iroquois GP/AA destroyers. Canada's previous fleet mix has not been strong on the dedicated AAW fleet and as the navy operates minimal expeditionary capability and is most likely to slot in with NATO allies or carry out constabulary tasks this may not be critical.

The British variant has a 12-cell launcher for the Sea Ceptor, quad packed for 48 total. It also has a 24-cell strike length VLS capable of chucking a wide range of munitions. 36 cells is far from fantastic but it gives pretty decent self-defense and with SM-2's regional defense capability.

That compares positively to the 16x ESSM of the 13x Halifax or 32 SM-2 of the 4x Iroquois. A buy of 15 T-26's would be a quantum leap on AAW. I'm not entirely sure what the Canadian T-26 is proposed to be equipped with sensor wise.

The Alvaro de Bazan has a probably superior AAW sensor fit with the SPY-1D, though that system is looking to be replaced in some US use with the AMDR plus, a 48 cell VLS is the biggest of the 3 by far.

The DZP has 40 VLS cells, not a significant improvement on the CSC, but she does have the APAR and SMART-L radar.

If you want ASW as a priority + some AA and you like a flexible mission bay giving some future proofing and better feel-good media opportunities then the T-26 is the best choice. However, it will cost, maybe $1bn apiece depending on exact fit, build etc.

If you want more AAW and more commonality with US kit, then the AdB looks good. However the Australian variant ended up costing a heck of a lot. Maybe they'll work out ok.

The DZP is a decent all-rounder and $800m looks attractive.

The Iroquois were converted into AA destroyers however, we're looking for a handful of dedicated AA destroyers while the rest are general purpose ASW tilted ships. The proposed Canadian variant does not come with the Sea Ceptors, only the 24 cell VLS system, so we're looking at 24 cells. Anything is a quantum leap over what we have now, our Halifax class are solid ships but they are relatively under armed and are getting worn out at a high pace. 

I'm betting the Type 26 will be chosen just due to it's commonality with other nations plus BAE's apparent pull with the RCN however I've heard musings that the Spanish option is the most preferred option from within the navy itself.

But keep in mind that's from sailors, so it could very likely be [edited].

The Type 26 in it's Canadian proposal really rubs me the wrong way, size and armament wise. The flexible mission bay is helpful but how helpful for such a price point and and on an unproven ship at that.

I'm personally agreeing with you, the Dutch ship looks like the most solid choice for the RCN.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
429
[WOLF9]
Members
3,239 posts

  Interesting comparison, Mofton.  Never seen it laid out like that.   Sort of makes the decision easier- once you know exactly what the Navy is looking for, and what they are likely to NEED.

  I wonder if the F-26 proposal could be ammended to include some MK41's  (or the Sylver equivalent) where the Sea Ceptor cells were.   The shorter self-defense version,  so they could carry some quad packed ESSM's  to expand their AAW capability, while leaving the strike length cells for other things- like ASROCS for the ASW version and SM-2's for the AAW version.   That might sweeten the deal.

  I have to agree that the Spanish and Dutch ships look more attractive.  And there's definitely something to be said for being fully compatible with your close neighbor and biggest ally.  If for no other reason than it would make it easier to re-supply them when out and about.  I assume that there would be some diplomatic hoops to jump through to get access to Aegis- I believe we only sell that to a tiny handful of nations:  Japan, Spain and Australia off the top of my head.

  It's also interesting to see what Canada's Frigate finalists are, compared to the US's short list.   (of course, we HAVE DD's, and just need frigates- Canada needs something to do both.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts

 

This for me seems already slighted towards the Type 26, which is why the FREMM participants did not give their formal proposal knowing they would lose anyway and their competitors would get classified data on the FREMM ships but instead they made a counter offer based on their own specs but one that would save the Canadian government a ton of money.   The bureaucrats rejected it of course.   Citing the bids were not fair, two other European consortium also withdrew their bids, including the Odensk one that I would have favored, based on the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.  

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts
1 hour ago, Fletcher7_1944 said:

  Interesting comparison, Mofton.  Never seen it laid out like that.   Sort of makes the decision easier- once you know exactly what the Navy is looking for, and what they are likely to NEED.

  I wonder if the F-26 proposal could be ammended to include some MK41's  (or the Sylver equivalent) where the Sea Ceptor cells were.   The shorter self-defense version,  so they could carry some quad packed ESSM's  to expand their AAW capability, while leaving the strike length cells for other things- like ASROCS for the ASW version and SM-2's for the AAW version.   That might sweeten the deal.

  I have to agree that the Spanish and Dutch ships look more attractive.  And there's definitely something to be said for being fully compatible with your close neighbor and biggest ally.  If for no other reason than it would make it easier to re-supply them when out and about.  I assume that there would be some diplomatic hoops to jump through to get access to Aegis- I believe we only sell that to a tiny handful of nations:  Japan, Spain and Australia off the top of my head.

  It's also interesting to see what Canada's Frigate finalists are, compared to the US's short list.   (of course, we HAVE DD's, and just need frigates- Canada needs something to do both.)

 

There is no clear indication what radar set is required unlike the US FFG(X) and the Australian SEA 5000, so anything goes what's going to be on the mast.  The Australian Type 26 uses Mk. 41s on a 32 cell layout.  With a ship displacing nearly as much as an Arleigh Burke, 32 cells seems very light when the Burke could hold three times as much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
429
[WOLF9]
Members
3,239 posts
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

This for me seems already slighted towards the Type 26, which is why the FREMM participants did not give their formal proposal knowing they would lose anyway and their competitors would get classified data on the FREMM ships but instead they made a counter offer based on their own specs but one that would save the Canadian government a ton of money.   The bureaucrats rejected it of course.   Citing the bids were not fair, two other European consortium also withdrew their bids, including the Odensk one that I would have favored, based on the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.  

 

  Ah yes, I begin to really understand the prior comments about broken procurement systems...   Leave it to bureaucrats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,089 posts

 

 

Also useless to discuss radars (APAR, SPY-1D, etc,.) from previous frigates as they won't apply in this case at all.  

 

Navantia F105 submission uses Australia's CEFAR radar instead of SPY-1D.  I could have confused this with Navantia's Australian submission, which I bet would have to be very similar to this.

 

PoEPx57.jpg

 

Alion's submission based on De Seven Provincien.  I don't think that's APAR they are using.  This is more likely some German electronics, probably TRS-4D radar like on the German F125 frigate.  This looks like a dual band setup with a separate illuminator, and doesn't have the Thales Smart-L used on the Dutch ships.  But overall TRS-4D is probably better than APAR, being a second generation Gallium Nitride using AESA.  There is a second generation APAR already but I have not seen it on a ship yet.  The lack of Thales in this mention doesn't suggest anything related to Thales on this ship, which APAR is from (Thales Netherlands).  

 

dDnwag9.jpg

 

 

And the FREMM proposal doesn't like any FREMM from the mast point of view.   That means what's on top of it has nothing to do what's already on top of the French and Italian FREMM frigates.  The FREMM proposal for the US FFG(X) uses the Raytheon EADS, which is like a smaller SPY-6, but the FREMM proposal for the Australian SEA 5000 would have Australia's CEFAR radar.

 

Unlike Australia and the US, Canada did not have a fixed radar requirement --- CEFAR for Australia and EADS for the US --- so all the submissions use whatever radar from whomever they choose.  

 

9XaTkup.jpg

 

As noting the Canadian Type 26 in the opening post uses radars that I don't know from whom, will have to research on that later, but this differs from the British version that uses the Type 997 Artisan 3D radar and the Australian version that uses CEFAR.   A hypothetical US Type 26 --- if the USN would still be willing to entertain BAE Systems for this --- would have to incorporate Raytheon's EADS.    No, FFG(X) is not using AEGIS SPY-1D or something like that, only certain common software libraries of AEGIS is used, the radar isn't going to be from Lockheed Martin's but from Raytheon.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
7 hours ago, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

We're ready to drop upwards of $42 billion on a 15~ ship class, money isn't the issue, a broken and stagnant procurement system is.

Hahahahaha. You're still trying to replace your CF-18s for the past 15 years. Not to mention 42 billion for 15 ships isn't going to get you anything except the hulls to sit at anchor in a bunch of your ports, a lot of good that'll do ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
Alpha Tester
5,035 posts
2,431 battles
21 hours ago, GuntherPrein said:

 the whole world likes Canada for what exactly????

Because we're nice and we don't go stirring up trouble.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
1 hour ago, 1Sherman said:

Because we're nice and we don't go stirring up trouble.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,280
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,545 posts
1 minute ago, TornadoADV said:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill

 

I guess you haven't read any Canadian history.
Vimy_Memorial_(September_2010)_cropped.j

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts
1 hour ago, Chobittsu said:

I guess you haven't read any Canadian history.
Vimy_Memorial_(September_2010)_cropped.j

At the behest of the Crown. :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,280
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,545 posts
46 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

At the behest of the Crown. :cap_cool:

So everything before 1982 doesn't count because we had a change in government? Guess that means that nothing in the US counts before 2016, or 2009, or 2001, or any other time you guys flip between political parties or have a change in leadership.
You'll claim 1776 because that's the year your country was founded. We became a sovereign nation in 1867 when Her Majesty said so, uniting all our provinces into one nation.
Proclamation_Canadian_Confederation.jpg

We were a nation before this though, but not the Dominion of Canada as it's known today, here's an animation showing how it worked:
Canada_provinces_evolution_2.gif

I know, it's a strange and alien concept to grasp for someone who isn't Canadian. But we... *gasp* ... have a history too?!

Fun fact, we only have ever lost one war (Not including ongoing conflicts); the Russian Civil War from 1918-1920. Of course, we weren't hugely invested in that war and only lost 14 men.
Another fun fact, you lost that one too

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
5 hours ago, Chobittsu said:
Spoiler

 

So everything before 1982 doesn't count because we had a change in government? Guess that means that nothing in the US counts before 2016, or 2009, or 2001, or any other time you guys flip between political parties or have a change in leadership.
You'll claim 1776 because that's the year your country was founded. We became a sovereign nation in 1867 when Her Majesty said so, uniting all our provinces into one nation.
Proclamation_Canadian_Confederation.jpg

We were a nation before this though, but not the Dominion of Canada as it's known today, here's an animation showing how it worked:
Canada_provinces_evolution_2.gif

I know, it's a strange and alien concept to grasp for someone who isn't Canadian. But we... *gasp* ... have a history too?!

Fun fact, we only have ever lost one war (Not including ongoing conflicts); the Russian Civil War from 1918-1920. Of course, we weren't hugely invested in that war and only lost 14 men.
Another fun fact, you lost that one too

 

 

Canadian history confused me.  Canadians constantly brag about how they burned down the White House in 1812 whereas the Burning of Washington lists the belligerent as the United Kingdom.  Do Canadians have a history of their own?  Or is it entirely blended with British History up until a certain point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,280
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,545 posts
10 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Canadian history confused me.  Canadians constantly brag about how they burned down the White House in 1812 whereas the Burning of Washington lists the belligerent as the United Kingdom.  Do Canadians have a history of their own?  Or is it entirely blended with British History up until a certain point?

 

Firstly, Redcoats are hard to ship across an ocean, so those were Canadians with British officers (Same thing happened frequently with your war of independence). But if you asked a British person "Were those men at Ortona British?" They would say "No, those were Canadians that bled for that town."

Like I said, if your concept of history depends on who is the leader at any given time, then, for example, the United States of America resets it's history every 4-8 years and renders everything previous meaningless because "That wasn't America, we're America now and only we matter."
My great-grandfather was at Vimy as a machine gunner, and my grandfather served in the RCAF from 1943, through Korea and right into The Cold War. To say "Do Canadians have a history of their own?" is probably the most insulting thing I've ever heard asked, and as someone who worked for over a decade in museums and has a rich family history, both in and out of the military, and can directly link my family bloodline through my grandmother to Sir Fredrick Banting, who earned a Nobel Prize for discovering Insulin... Yes. We have a history of our own, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
21 minutes ago, Chobittsu said:

Firstly, Redcoats are hard to ship across an ocean, so those were Canadians with British officers (Same thing happened frequently with your war of independence). But if you asked a British person "Were those men at Ortona British?" They would say "No, those were Canadians that bled for that town."

Like I said, if your concept of history depends on who is the leader at any given time, then, for example, the United States of America resets it's history every 4-8 years and renders everything previous meaningless because "That wasn't America, we're America now and only we matter."
My great-grandfather was at Vimy as a machine gunner, and my grandfather served in the RCAF from 1943, through Korea and right into The Cold War. To say "Do Canadians have a history of their own?" is probably the most insulting thing I've ever heard asked, and as someone who worked for over a decade in museums and has a rich family history, both in and out of the military, and can directly link my family bloodline through my grandmother to Sir Fredrick Banting, who earned a Nobel Prize for discovering Insulin... Yes. We have a history of our own, thank you very much.

It is said in the US that Canada gained its national spirit from fighting in WWI, but before WWI, it's kind of a blur where British history ends and Canadian history truly starts (at least from an US-American perspective).  I don't fully understand it. 

 

Edit:  Wikipedia says Canadian military history only began with Canada's declaration of war in 1914.  Why 1914 and not before?  I've heard Canadians proudly say they asserted Canada's independence from the UK by declaring war on Germany independently during WWII, but from what I read online "The British declaration of war automatically brought Canada into the war, because of Canada's legal status as a British dominion which left foreign policy decisions in the hands of the British parliament."  So I don't understand any of this.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
21 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Hahahahaha. You're still trying to replace your CF-18s for the past 15 years. Not to mention 42 billion for 15 ships isn't going to get you anything except the hulls to sit at anchor in a bunch of your ports, a lot of good that'll do ya.

Again, broken procurement system, not a lack of funding. 

$42B+ is more than enough for such a class, no clue what you are praddling on about. I sense a bit of bias here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×