Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

6x 32 on the Autonomous Ships = 192
11x 16 on the GP Frigates = 176
6x 32 on the Hunters = 192
3x 48 on the Hobarts = 144

Grand Total of 704 cells at sea or 2816 ESSMs.

15x 24 on the CSC = 360 cells at sea or 1440 ESSMs

I gather the Aussies are planning on buying Autonomous Ships but crewing them. The USN has been manning their Ghost Fleet Large USVs with 6 watchkeepers.

I don’t know how many ESSM exist in the world or what the production looks like, but either way it’s probably not nearly enough.

 

[dapaterson]

The aussies can get to the fight via Island hopping. something Canada can't do.

I blame BC Ferries.

 

[Lumber]

You want to pick up the pace then focus on the VLS requirement and scale back on the ASW requirement. No?

You can increase the number of VLS cells and NSM launchers without removing any ASW capabilities.

 

[Maxman1]

In the table at the back of the document they specify Tomahawk, with the Albanese government agreeing to that.
They also spec the Meko A 200, which has a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS but I think these are not strike length.

“The MEKO A-200 frigate measures 121m in length and accommodates up to 120 crew members. Its armament includes a 127mm or 76mm main gun, a pair of 30mm-40mm secondary guns, two 12.7-20mm cannons, eight surface-to-surface missiles, 32 surface-to-air missiles, two anti-submarine (ASW) torpedo tubes, and sea mines.

The ship can house two 5t helicopters, two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and an all-weather capable boat. It is outfitted with various sonars, trackers, radars and navigation systems, as well as two torpedo decoy launchers and two EM/IR decoy launchers for countermeasures.”

They specified the Meko A-200, Mogami 30FFM, Daegu FFX and Navantia ALFA3000, but it doesn't seem set in stone, so the Type 31 might be considered as well.

 

[Rainbow1910]

They specified the Meko A-200, Mogami 30FFM, Daegu FFX and Navantia ALFA3000, but it doesn't seem set in stone, so the Type 31 might be considered as well.

The fact that they specified a bunch of smaller frigates specifically all in a similar bracket below the Type 31 suggests to me that they are not especially interested.

 

[Kirkhill]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy completed its first deployment of four unmanned ships, which spent five months in the Pacific testing concepts for how to integrate their capabilities into crewed fleet operations.

The unmanned surface vessels — Sea Hunter, Sea Hawk, Mariner and Ranger — departed Southern California on Aug. 7 and returned Jan. 15. The Sea Hunter and Sea Hawk originate from a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency effort; the other two come from the Strategic Capabilities Office’s Overlord program.

During that five-month period, the four prototypes sailed a combined 46,651 nautical miles and visited ports in Japan and Australia. They also each operated for as much as 50 days at sea at a time “almost exclusively” in autonomous mode, Cmdr. Jeremiah Daley, the head of Unmanned Surface Vessel Division One, told reporters in a Tuesday call.

Daley said the deployment, overseen by U.S. Pacific Fleet, was meant to put the unmanned ships in a forward-deployed environment — with real sailors and Marines aboard operational ships — and test the existing concepts of operations, crewing assumptions, predicted maintenance needs and more.

Daley said the deployment was successful and the concepts for operations and sustainment are nearly ready for prime time. If the Navy ordered the construction of the first operational large or medium USV today, he explained, the concepts could be refined and ready to implement by the time the ship delivered to the fleet. (Edit: I suspect that the Aussies will be footing that bill by buying 6 Austal ships just as they did on the Loyal Wingman/Ghost Bat project - contribution to AUKUS)

But there’s still more testing to do, he acknowledged.

The unmanned surface vessel Ranger trails the U.S. Navy destroyer Shoup as both ships transit the Pacific Ocean on Sept. 15, 2023. (MC2 Jesse Monford/U.S. Navy)

A bright spot was command and control of the vessels.

Sea Hunter and Sea Hawk do not have accommodations for people, aside from a small bridge that’s used for controlling the vessel only while it’s entering and exiting a port.

Ranger and Mariner are optionally manned but spent the vast majority of their time on deployment in autonomous mode, Daley said.

The vessels are then controlled by staff either at the Unmanned Operations Center in Port Hueneme, California, or aboard another U.S. Navy ship in the region.

Daley said he and his division staff experimented with several ways to control the vessels from ashore and at sea, using different numbers of operators, controlling different numbers of vessels from a single console, transferring control in different ways and more — leading this to become one of the most mature aspects of the concept of operations.

But an area that requires more work is integrating the USV and its payload into the broader network of sensors and shooters. Daley declined to identify the kinds of payloads the USVs worked with, other than to say they operated in the air, on the surface and under the sea.

But their operations did highlight a need for better integration. He said merging with U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Joint Fires Network is one example where there’s room to “close those seams, if there are any,” to ensure data the USVs collect can be best leveraged by the rest of the Navy and joint force.

Some of that will come with the fielding of the Integrated Combat System, which the Navy is developing and is to be installed on the future Large USVs. Daley said Mariner currently runs a version of the virtualized Aegis Combat System, but the service members want more integration based on how they could conceive leveraging an unmanned ship to supplement their own operations.

Once the Integrated Combat System is complete, the same software will run on all the Navy’s crewed ships and the Large USV, allowing for the more seamless sharing of data.

The unmanned surface vessels Ranger and Mariner sail alongside Japan's Mogami-class frigate JS Kumano on Sept. 27, 2023. (MC2 Jesse Monford/U.S. Navy)

While there’s still more work to do before unmanned ships become a permanent fixture in fleet operations, Daley said the excitement from the fleet was clear during the deployment — particularly from amphibious and stand-in forces looking to spread throughout the Pacific as well as both leverage and contribute to a common picture of the battlespace.

“There is a lot of synergy and energy that is all very positive in working with the combined Navy-Marine Corps team — and more importantly the stand-in force in 7th Fleet,” Daley said, referring specifically to III Marine Expeditionary Force, Task Force 76 and their integrated Navy-Marine headquarters staff in Okinawa, Japan.

“There is a lot of positive feedback and a lot of very good development into how we are going to do operations together as a stand-in force and afloat forces in 7th Fleet,” Daley said.

US Navy’s four unmanned ships return from Pacific deployment

Four medium USV prototypes spent five months in the region working with the Navy-Marine team and allies to push the limits of concepts of operations.

www.defensenews.com

Related:

Austal USA Delivers First 'Autonomous Capable' EPF Ship to US Navy - Naval News

Austal USA delivered Expeditionary Fast Transport USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13) to the U.S. Navy, today.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not sure that I buy the "island hopping" advantage.

Where is a blue-water fleet going to go to rearm?

 

[Maxman1]

The fact that they specified a bunch of smaller frigates specifically all in a similar bracket below the Type 31 suggests to me that they are not especially interested.

The specification is apparently "under 4,000 tons", but that doesn't seem to be a hard requirement.

 

[Rainbow1910]

What if it's not "haphazardly" done? Lots of "OPVs" out there with missiles.

Basically all of those are just throwing a handful of lighter anti-ship missiles onto an OPV, almost always done by a navy who doesn't have enough/any larger combatants to have as proper launch platforms. Or nations looking to wave them in the direction of a rival. Not a reasonable use of weight, space and expensive in my opinion, leave the fighting to the warships.

 

[GR66]

• At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the ability to:
  
  • operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
  • provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array
    sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
  • provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems
  • provide maritime and land strike
  • provide force protection.

Basically all of those are just throwing a handful of lighter anti-ship missiles onto an OPV, almost always done by a navy who doesn't have enough/any larger combatants to have as proper launch platforms. Or nations looking to wave them in the direction of a rival. Not a reasonable use of weight, space and expensive in my opinion, leave the fighting to the warships.

I'd argue that with the likely role of the RCN as getting allied transports and naval task forces safely to the conflict zone as well as protecting our coastlines from enemy submarines that there is a role for something in between what the Aussies are looking for in their Tier 2 ships and a MCDV.

Maybe something along the lines of a River-Class Batch 2 in terms of size and endurance with capabilities along the lines of:

• operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter UAV along the lines of a Firescout UAV equipped with sonobouys and lightweight torpedoes
• provide undersea warfare through a depressed [containerized] active/passive towed array sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes [use the UAV to conduct ASW attacks...if the sub's close enough for ship-borne torps it's likely too late)
• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems - [upgrade the 30mm gun to a dual-purpose 57mm and provide point defense with something like RAM missiles and Phalinx.]
• provide maritime and land strike [not really a priority for the roles it's meant to fulfill but a pair of quad Harpoon or NSM launchers could be useful]
• provide force protection.
• [facilities to launch and recover USV's/UUV's for MCM roles]

Something like this would be an upgrade over the MCDV's that wouldn't be as much as a personnel burden as Corvette-type vessel but would also provide in increased wartime utility as part of a task force or in covering our coastlines.

 

[KevinB]

I'd argue that with the likely role of the RCN as getting allied transports and naval task forces safely to the conflict zone as well as protecting our coastlines from enemy submarines that there is a role for something in between what the Aussies are looking for in their Tier 2 ships and a MCDV.

Maybe something along the lines of a River-Class Batch 2 in terms of size and endurance with capabilities along the lines of:

• operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter UAV along the lines of a Firescout UAV equipped with sonobouys and lightweight torpedoes
• provide undersea warfare through a depressed [containerized] active/passive towed array sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes [use the UAV to conduct ASW attacks...if the sub's close enough for ship-borne torps it's likely too late)
• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems - [upgrade the 30mm gun to a dual-purpose 57mm and provide point defense with something like RAM missiles and Phalinx.]
• provide maritime and land strike [not really a priority for the roles it's meant to fulfill but a pair of quad Harpoon or NSM launchers could be useful]
• provide force protection.
• [facilities to launch and recover USV's/UUV's for MCM roles]

Something like this would be an upgrade over the MCDV's that wouldn't be as much as a personnel burden as Corvette-type vessel but would also provide in increased wartime utility as part of a task force or in covering our coastlines.

What enemy subs?

Any large scale conventional operation will see the USN and allies going to town on Russian and/or Chinese submarines.

Anti missile systems, and anti USV systems are more likely a higher need for the “lesser combatant's” as well as a robust transport capability for the RCN.

 

[Maxman1]

I'd argue that with the likely role of the RCN as getting allied transports and naval task forces safely to the conflict zone as well as protecting our coastlines from enemy submarines that there is a role for something in between what the Aussies are looking for in their Tier 2 ships and a MCDV.

Maybe something along the lines of a River-Class Batch 2 in terms of size and endurance with capabilities along the lines of:

• operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter UAV along the lines of a Firescout UAV equipped with sonobouys and lightweight torpedoes
• provide undersea warfare through a depressed [containerized] active/passive towed array sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes [use the UAV to conduct ASW attacks...if the sub's close enough for ship-borne torps it's likely too late)
• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems - [upgrade the 30mm gun to a dual-purpose 57mm and provide point defense with something like RAM missiles and Phalinx.]
• provide maritime and land strike [not really a priority for the roles it's meant to fulfill but a pair of quad Harpoon or NSM launchers could be useful]
• provide force protection.
• [facilities to launch and recover USV's/UUV's for MCM roles]

Something like this would be an upgrade over the MCDV's that wouldn't be as much as a personnel burden as Corvette-type vessel but would also provide in increased wartime utility as part of a task force or in covering our coastlines.

At that point, you might as well go with a light frigate like the Type 31. To take an existing design like the River class and such substantial changes would cost as much and likely increase the crew to the same as something designed from the start as a frigate, but without the survivability or full capabilities you would get in the frigate, while losing the plot of an OPV.

OPVs are for low-intensity missions and constabulary patrols, not front line combat like frigates and destroyers. If you're using something like a River-Class OPV for ASW, shore battery or missile strikes, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

 

[NavyShooter]

There can be as much discussion as we'd like to have about the various things that we think the RCN 'needs'.

To be blunt, we'll get what the GOC gives us, and it won't happen soon enough. The discussion of Mistrals, 280 replacements, MCDV replacements, the BHS, all of those ships 'have sailed' and we are left with the CSC.

I suspect that the die on those is mostly cast, and if it's not, they should damn well get about it quickly so that they can start production sooner rather than later.

The continual atrophy and delays will be the death of the RCN.

 

[FSTO]

I think Irving is currently doing testing welds/cutting/forms for the CSC as we speak. I think the hull and engineering side of the house pretty much set. I also believe that Batch 5 (if we get there) will look fairly different from Batch 1.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think Irving is currently doing testing welds/cutting/forms for the CSC as we speak. I think the hull and engineering side of the house pretty much set. I also believe that Batch 5 (if we get there) will look fairly different from Batch 1.

The latest issue of the Canadian Defence Review stated that the contracts for the first three are hoped to be signed this year, then Irving can move to work on the prototype modules planned for July 2024 with full rate production starting in April 2025. AOPS construction rate is reaching its peak at this point, so I would imagine they are looking to jump to CSC production ASAP to not have much of a lull in work. It will be nice to hopefully see the ships assigned pennants, named and cost breakdowns (for the first three) shared this year as was promised.

They had best hurry it up on the yard expansions to the Halifax Shipyard if this timeline is to be kept to, ship lifts and infilling doesn't happen overnight.

 

[FSTO]

It will be nice to hopefully see the ships assigned pennants, named and cost breakdowns (for the first three) shared this year as was promised.

 

[Rainbow1910]

In the table at the back of the document they specify Tomahawk, with the Albanese government agreeing to that.

I went back and looked, it lists Tomahawk in relation to the Hunter class and the Hobarts, not the new Tier 2 ships. Those will almost certainly lack strike length VLS and thus be unable to launch Tomahawks. They would be using Naval Strike Missile as a land attack item.

 

[Kirkhill]

There can be as much discussion as we'd like to have about the various things that we think the RCN 'needs'.

To be blunt, we'll get what the GOC gives us, and it won't happen soon enough. The discussion of Mistrals, 280 replacements, MCDV replacements, the BHS, all of those ships 'have sailed' and we are left with the CSC.

I suspect that the die on those is mostly cast, and if it's not, they should damn well get about it quickly so that they can start production sooner rather than later.

The continual atrophy and delays will be the death of the RCN.

A better plan would be to simply speed up the delivery on CSCs. (And the F35s and Arctic Radar upgrades for that matter).

 

[Rainbow1910]

A better plan would be to simply speed up the delivery on CSCs. (And the F35s and Arctic Radar upgrades for that matter).

There realistically isn't much speeding up that can be done. Prototype module work is seemingly going to start construction in July 2024 and full rate production follows in April 2025. AOPS need to be finished and Irving needs to complete their site expansion before CSC production can really pick up steam, let alone the switch over required going from the AOPS design to the CSC design. Work is seemingly progressing about as fast as is reasonable expected.

 

[Kirkhill]

There realistically isn't much speeding up that can be done. Prototype module work is seemingly going to start construction in July 2024 and full rate production follows in April 2025. AOPS need to be finished and Irving needs to complete their site expansion before CSC production can really pick up steam, let alone the switch over required going from the AOPS design to the CSC design. Work is seemingly progressing about as fast as is reasonable expected.

I take your point about getting the first "prototype" hull into the water. But how about after that? Could that one a year schedule not be compressed?