Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[ddxx]

I think it’s worth remembering that all three ship classes (CSC, T26, Hunter) are based upon the BAE Systems Global Combat Ship design - Not the Type 26.

The Type 26 is only the first of class based upon that design.

The base design by BAE is essentially for a flexible, large, multirole surface combatant - which has been enhanced with advanced ASW stealth attributes. That’s it.

 

[Git_Kraken]

For those who are interested in RCN policy and thinking here is Leadmark 2050.

Leadmark 2050: Canada in a New Maritime World is the RCN’s vision of the future. It explains why Canada has a navy, what it does and how it must evolve to meet challenges ahead.

This came out in 2017 but defines the thinking into what has turned into the NSPS/NSS, the investment in the CSC, JSS and other naval assets. Its important reading if you want to understand the fundamental purpose of the RCN. It is an aspirational document for sure, but one needs to define the goals in order to work towards the future.

 

[Git_Kraken]

It seems that Dr. Marcus Hellyer's, “Delivering a stronger Navy, faster”, from ASPI has made it into conversation in the RCN context.

An article from Dr. Dan Middlemiss discusses possible implications for Canada as the RCN is facing similar challenges for the CSC program.

Of course in the spirit of good discourse Timothy Choi a new up and coming defence analyst had a response focusing on some of the hyperbole that has made its way into the VLS debates.

It's nice to see Canadian naval circles get some new voices with different perspectives. Makes for a healthy intellectual environment (bias: I fully agree with Tim on this one).

 

[Delta204]

It seems that Dr. Marcus Hellyer's, “Delivering a stronger Navy, faster”, from ASPI has made it into conversation in the RCN context.

An article from Dr. Dan Middlemiss discusses possible implications for Canada as the RCN is facing similar challenges for the CSC program.

Of course in the spirit of good discourse Timothy Choi a new up and coming defence analyst had a response focusing on some of the hyperbole that has made its way into the VLS debates.

It's nice to see Canadian naval circles get some new voices with different perspectives. Makes for a healthy intellectual environment (bias: I fully agree with Tim on this one).

I'm glad this topic is generating some discussion. My position would be closely aligned with Dr MIddlemiss.

The list of modern "frigate" comparables from Tim's article is somewhat disingenuous. Many of these designs are much smaller than CSC and come from navies that also have larger AWD's in their fleet.

I understand that quad packed ESSM's along with CAMM would be a massive upgrade in AAW realm for the RCN. However, if hypersonic weapons continue to progress as we suspect, longer range missiles like SM-6 (and future versions) will be imperative (I understand we have no current publicly stated plans to acquire SM-6 but I'm making the assumption this would be available in the future if the RCN chose). This means that future naval commanders in the RCN will have their hands tied to a degree; choosing between SM-x missile loadouts to defend against hypersonic threats while potentially leaving themselves exposed to ASCM salvo's. I think this is what Dr. Middlemiss is getting at in his article. Low VLS number means you lose flexibility to deal with emerging threats.

For what the RCN wanted the CSC to be I'm honestly surprised that a 48 cell MK 41 wasn't baked into to the requirements at the onset, especially when they talked about "long-range precision naval fires" on top of long, short and close-in missile defense. A 48 cell MK 41 would have been commensurate with the overall size, cost, radar spec and stated requirements for the CSC. From the reading I've done on publications from the CSBA and elsewhere I'm of the belief that capability falls precipitously once you start reducing VLS cells. You can't reload VLS at sea so once your magazine is low or spent even if you've survived the attacked you are out of the fight and many miles and days away from rejoining - and by that time it might be all over. But I'm just a civilian who reads this for fun so I fully admit that I could be off the mark.

 

[John Fedup]

More VLS cells would be nice but the CSC is a quantum leap beyond what we have now. Even with 16 SM2/6 and the other 16 cells quad packed with ESSM plus the CAMM loading, that is a significant number. The SM-6 will be desirable at some point but at $5 million CDN each, can’t see junior forking out the cash for more than a few dozen. CSCs won’t be deployed by themselves and depending on the other fleet members, CSCs could be loaded up with mostly ESSM and larger allied ships from the US and Japan could handle the long range defence with SM2/6.

IIRC, Australia’s Hunter class is probably 32 cells but there is much discussion about 48. Whether this is possible or not without major design changes in conjunction with other Australian requirements remains to be seen. Speculation about displacement going beyond 10,000 tons, if true, is a significant increase so there will be concern about the ship’s maximum speed with the currently specified MT30 GT and the MTU diesel package.

 

[HaroldBloggins]

I'm glad this topic is generating some discussion. My position would be closely aligned with Dr MIddlemiss.

The list of modern "frigate" comparables from Tim's article is somewhat disingenuous. Many of these designs are much smaller than CSC and come from navies that also have larger AWD's in their fleet.

I understand that quad packed ESSM's along with CAMM would be a massive upgrade in AAW realm for the RCN. However, if hypersonic weapons continue to progress as we suspect, longer range missiles like SM-6 (and future versions) will be imperative (I understand we have no current publicly stated plans to acquire SM-6 but I'm making the assumption this would be available in the future if the RCN chose). This means that future naval commanders in the RCN will have their hands tied to a degree; choosing between SM-x missile loadouts to defend against hypersonic threats while potentially leaving themselves exposed to ASCM salvo's. I think this is what Dr. Middlemiss is getting at in his article. Low VLS number means you lose flexibility to deal with emerging threats.

For what the RCN wanted the CSC to be I'm honestly surprised that a 48 cell MK 41 wasn't baked into to the requirements at the onset, especially when they talked about "long-range precision naval fires" on top of long, short and close-in missile defense. A 48 cell MK 41 would have been commensurate with the overall size, cost, radar spec and stated requirements for the CSC. From the reading I've done on publications from the CSBA and elsewhere I'm of the belief that capability falls precipitously once you start reducing VLS cells. You can't reload VLS at sea so once your magazine is low or spent even if you've survived the attacked you are out of the fight and many miles and days away from rejoining - and by that time it might be all over. But I'm just a civilian who reads this for fun so I fully admit that I could be off the mark.

Apparently you can reload at sea, pretty sketchy though.
UK Armed Forces Commentary: Vertical Launching Systems and the Type 26

 

[spoz]

That is a very old photograph. It was tried for a number of years but, as can be inferred from that photo, it was a job getting the reload line up completely vertical in any sort of sea; it's almost calm there and they are still a long way short of lined up vertical. The actions of the two sailors at the base of canister, lining it up, quite obviously require considerable strength and pushing and shoving even in the very benign sea state shown. In anything more than that it became extremely dangerous. It was also an extremely slow process; and the crane couldn't handle the largest missiles. For those reasons the whole concept was abandoned some time in the nineties from memory and the cranes, which IIRC took up the space of four tubes, were removed and the tubes restored.

 

[swerve]

The only way I can see of doing it that might be practical is to have a bigger, heavier crane with a frame in which it could hold the missile rigidly, vertical to the deck. And that'd take up more than four cells & I'm still not sure it'd be very effective. And it'd still be slow.

 

[alexsa]

The only way I can see of doing it that might be practical is to have a bigger, heavier crane with a frame in which it could hold the missile rigidly, vertical to the deck. And that'd take up more than four cells & I'm still not sure it'd be very effective. And it'd still be slow.

Agree ... you would be looking at something heave compensated ..... and they are a bit like BAE systems (big and expensive). Added to which on a smaller (relative to the size of the vessels fitted with these things) may not be useful in heavy conditions anyway.

3-axis motion compensation cranes - MacGregor.com

Admittedly this example is at the bigger end of the scale.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agree ... you would be looking at something heave compensated ..... and they are a bit like BAE systems (big and expensive). Added to which on a smaller (relative to the size of the vessels fitted with these things) may not be useful in heavy conditions anyway.

3-axis motion compensation cranes - MacGregor.com

Admittedly this example is at the bigger end of the scale.

It's a real pity that they couldn't be reloaded from below. That way a complete reload infrastructure could have been built below decks. I think the analogy is with guns. The Mk-41 VLS is a muzzle loader and what is required is a breach loading variant.

 

[alexsa]

It's a real pity that they couldn't be reloaded from below. That way a complete reload infrastructure could have been built below decks. I think the analogy is with guns. The Mk-41 VLS is a muzzle loader and what is required is a breach loading variant.

I think the only missile in the US inventory they currently load at sea is RAM (images in the links).

RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile RAM Mk-13 Mk-49 GMLS (seaforces.org)
The US Navy just developed an answer to one of the biggest threats from Russia and China (businessinsider.com.au)

The original Sparrow (in the Mk25 launcher) was reloadable as well. Not the case with the VLS as noted above.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's a real pity that they couldn't be reloaded from below. That way a complete reload infrastructure could have been built below decks. I think the analogy is with guns. The Mk-41 VLS is a muzzle loader and what is required is a breach loading variant.

That might be a step backwards though. The OHP-class frigates with the Mk 13 launcher fired from a magazine, while a Mk 41 VLS is both launcher and magazine. Attempting to fit another magazine beneath something like a Mk 41 VLS, which could enable missiles to be loaded vertically from below would likely require several additional decks.

 

[ngatimozart]

That might be a step backwards though. The OHP-class frigates with the Mk 13 launcher fired from a magazine, while a Mk 41 VLS is both launcher and magazine. Attempting to fit another magazine beneath something like a Mk 41 VLS, which could enable missiles to be loaded vertically from below would likely require several additional decks.

Yes I realise that. It was why I started my comment with "It’s a pity ..." . The at sea reload problem is always going to be a weakness until a viable solution is found.

 

[swerve]

But in the days of single or twin launchers loaded from a below deck magazine, how practical was it to reload the magazine at sea?

 

[Pusser01]

But in the days of single or twin launchers loaded from a below deck magazine, how practical was it to reload the magazine at sea?

The RAN did practice loading SM1 & Harpoon on a few instances during the 90's & into the early 00's onto the Mk13 launcher on the FFG's. The missiles were brought across from Success via Heavy Jackstay in a wheeled cradle onto the FFG's forecastle. It would then loaded into the Mk13 the same way as alongside, the launcher basically rotated down to the same level as the cradle which was locked into position, the missile would then be transferred across via a rail & then taken below. There would be room for 2 cradles on the FX at one time. It would still require reasonably calm conditions for this to occur safely. Cheers.

 

[Delta204]

I wonder if CAMM can be reloaded at sea? Perhaps some of the RN members would know?

One possible workaround on the VLS issue for CSC and perhaps other designs would be pivoting away from ESSM, replacing it with CAMM or the extended range version of it that just became available. The reason for this would be to use lighter weight launchers for CAMM such as mushroom farm or ExLS and save the MK 41's for the larger SM-2/6's. Quad packed ESSM's don't need nearly the full size of a strike length MK 41 cell.

The CSC design already has a 6 cell ExLS launcher above the mission bay. But if the forward 8 cell MK 41 (as seen on previous CSC designs) is replaced with 6 cell (or more - it comes in 3-packs) ExLS launcher I would imagine that would save considerable weight? I know a strike length MK 41 weighs over 30,000 lbs, but I'm not sure what the ExLS comes in at - probably a fair bit less.

 

[spoz]

The RAN did practice loading SM1 & Harpoon on a few instances during the 90's & into the early 00's onto the Mk13 launcher on the FFG's. The missiles were brought across from Success via Heavy Jackstay in a wheeled cradle onto the FFG's forecastle. It would then loaded into the Mk13 the same way as alongside, the launcher basically rotated down to the same level as the cradle which was locked into position, the missile would then be transferred across via a rail & then taken below. There would be room for 2 cradles on the FX at one time. It would still require reasonably calm conditions for this to occur safely. Cheers.

We did it a number of times in Hobart in '86 as an exercise; it was quite possible but cumbersome. The time taken would probably have decreased quite a lot if we'd had more practice.

 

[Stuart M]

It's a real pity that they couldn't be reloaded from below. That way a complete reload infrastructure could have been built below decks. I think the analogy is with guns. The Mk-41 VLS is a muzzle loader and what is required is a breach loading variant.

Well that's what used to happen if you recall: The Brits called it Sea Slug ;-).

 

[swerve]

Please, don't remind us! Only effective military use AFAIK was for shore bombardment in 1982. One put out of action an Argentinean radar which was being a nuisance. And yes, that was what it was aimed at. Others may have destroyed or damaged some helicopters on the ground.

 

[Stuart M]

Please, don't remind us! Only effective military use AFAIK was for shore bombardment in 1982. One put out of action an Argentinean radar which was being a nuisance. And yes, that was what it was aimed at. Others may have destoyed or damaged some helicopters on the ground.

I have always considered the use of Sea Slug for ground bombardment to quite fascinating given its design intent as a first generation naval SAM.. hit with the force of a 15' inch shell I hear.. *cough* Vanguard*cough* and a good example, imo as a lesson in having versatile systems, as well as multiple versatile systems.