Let's talk about the Continental Defence Corvette

Every time I think I'm done with this project, something comes up for me to talk about. It doesn’t matter how many times I tell myself that I can take a break, it keeps coming back up to the forefront.

It’s not that I don’t like talking about Corvettes. I find the conversation quite interesting and thought-provoking. However, with everything out there, it has turned into a bit of a resource taker for me.

For those of you who missed it, Vice-Admiral Topshee was on The Hurley Burly podcast the other day. It is a great watch, which you should go and see. It was a fairly long interview with lots of great insights.

One of the major topics that came up was the River-class Destroyer and in turn the Continental Defence Corvette (CDC). It’s always great to hear Topshee speak on these topics. He is a wonderful speaker, very engaging. He hasn't talked about the project in a while, so it was also interesting to compare notes.

I’ve been trying really hard to dive into CDC after CANSEC. Vard had my brain going with Vigilance 100 and talking about it as an option. Then Mazur started talking about Mexico’s Benito Juárez, herself a SIGMA 10514-based design.

Both of these were larger, proper Corvette designs—a far cry from the last few months of ‘Little Corvette’ discussions we've been having. It's perfectly natural for a project in the Identification phase to undergo a change of requirements.

The CDC has been through several changes, evolving from a Kingston-replacement to a proper combatant already, including a fourth name. So once these larger designs started entering the conversation, I naturally wanted to do some digging on where things stood.

It took a while, but I finally was able to piece together things talking to people on the project. I was hoping to wait a bit more before discussing it, so consider this an unexpected treat. Topshee talking about it was enough to convince me that we should maybe talk about it.

Corvettes are obviously not new. The Flower-class are iconic staples of the RCN, and the concept has appeared several times since then, most recently the CASSEV proposal shown off in the 1991 Statement on Defence Policy.

CASSEV, for its time, was a very weird proposal—very close in size to the then Canadian Patrol Frigate, larger than many corvettes at the time, though lacking a lot of the capabilities one would expect, such as ASW or local Air Defence capability.

Perhaps a bit ahead of its time, where technology has advanced enough that smaller vessels can now adequately be equipped with more comparable sensors and capabilities as compared to their early ‘90s counterparts. Corvettes these days also regularly get into the size range of CASSEV.

AOPS-ish almost, if that makes sense. Maybe I need to talk about this project separately sometime? I do think it proves that this concept isn’t new, and has been regularly explored, at least in the Cold War era.

This go-around has gotten the farthest of all of them. As I reported two weeks ago, the project has moved into the Options Analysis phase, meaning that requirements are starting to be cemented.

There are still things left to be decided and more debates to be had on capabilities. However, it is clear to me that the basic wants have been established, and we can start to set some established demands that are unlikely to shift.

The Basics

I have had the chance to have several lengthy discussions with people tied to the project recently and, while there are still things in the air, the basics seem to have been set.

The vessels will be combatants. That does mean they will have an Anti-Surface, Local Air Defence, and likely Anti-Submarine capability.

While many of these capabilities were previously too large or power-intensive for the CASSEV era, advances in technology have shrunk both the physical size and power requirements of modern sensor systems.

You can see this in concepts like the Vigilance proposal. A small vessel under 90m can still be equipped with modern, capable sensor systems, including hull-mounted sonar systems like the Thales Bluehunter, DRDO Abhay, or Yakamos—all of which are designed with corvettes in mind.

It’s a bit early to say how capable this sensor suite will be, though if there is one thing talking around, it is that we would like to go well beyond what the AOPS has. This will have a capable air-search radar, likely in the same class as the NS-series or Giraffe radars.

It will have CMS-330 and OSI bridge/systems. That has been obvious for most, but it is always good to mention it again.

The vessels will be no more than 104m in length, maybe a few meters extra if we're pushing it. That has been well established for a while now, as it is the max we can go with the berth space available (without needing to modify or expand anything).

They will need to be oceanic—able to cross the Atlantic, for example, without issue. Yes, you could do that with a Kingston, but no one will pretend it’s a nice trip. That will require a certain level of seakeeping as well as endurance and range past 4500nm.

As Topshee said, there are talks about having some form of ice-strengthening. I don't know what level that is—still being discussed—though it won't be any Polar-class.

That is too much. It might be similar to the Kingston, if not a bit higher. Maybe they get into the Finnish-Swedish class, though I am doubtful of that.

There are no weight restrictions talking around. Nor is there discussion on the NSS limits at this time. Obviously there is a desire to aim smaller and to avoid too much Scope Creep, but there is no hard limit to weight, especially not when ice-strengthening is at play.

These vessels are a complement to the River. They are designed primarily to free the Rivers up from the Continental Defence role, allowing them more flexibility in where they go and what they do.

These vessels will be optimized to the littoral, while still being capable enough to be used beyond Canada if needed, including as part of a task force. They need to be cheaper, easier to build, and replaceable.

What they likely won't have

That’s something I think many forget in everything. The name change did not change the desire for modularity, which is still important. They did not change the desire to see these as motherships for unmanned systems. That’s also important.

There will have to be some sacrifices there to make sure they do not creep too far beyond that desire. These won’t, for example, have an Area Air Defence capability. They will have the capability to defend themselves from threats and perhaps provide some lower-end coverage, but that’s it.

It makes sense from a Continental Defence perspective. That isn’t a threat these vessels will be expected to handle. That is a task that will be undertaken by other assets like the River-class or land-based systems.

Similarly, they likely won’t have a long-range strike capability—because why would they? They might have an anti-surface capability like NSM. That is entirely possible. I think it is likely.

These vessels also won’t have flight decks large enough for helo ops. They will likely have a flight deck for UAS, but that is where it will cap out. Some might question this given their ASW role, but these vessels are not expected to be actively hunting submarines.

They will instead primarily be another node in the network—an extra pair of eyes that will exist under the coverage of other assets like the P-8. The more sensors you have, especially when covering such a vast area as the Canadian EEZ, the better. You can't really afford not to have as many eyes as possible. These will provide that.

What about the Strike-Length VLS and BMD

Okay. This is one that everyone has asked me about recently, and I am guilty of showing off the Vigilance 100 and talking about it. Consequences of own actions or something.

As of right now, the VLS question is undecided, though I can safely say no one I talked to discussed the BMD role with me. The general idea was that other systems would handle that fine.

Now, that isn’t ruling out VLS—or I should say MK.41. It is probably the most hotly debated topic on this project right now, and the more you talk, the harder you see the choice.

On the one hand, having MK.41 would provide some form of future-proofing. It would provide a system that can quickly integrate and adapt a number of munitions if needed.

This can include things beyond the higher-end of Tomahawks and SM-series like ESSM or ASROC. It also provides a hedge for any future munitions developed, including unmanned systems.

It’s also hard to just add this stuff later if you determine that it is a need. You can’t just add cells as you please. It doesn’t work that way.

However, the addition of VLS means a hefty price tag—a very hefty price tag—one that you have to debate when talking about a system that won’t be used in that strike/BMD role. Is that cost worth it to have available if you might never need it?

It’s a tough ask, and maybe the solution is something like being able to fit MK.70 if needed. I know. Everyone knows I’m not a fan of that idea. You all know my skepticism on using MK.70 in this capacity.

There are other, smaller VLS options out there. Many will quickly bring up ExLS and CAMM-variants, but that isn’t really desirable talking around. The hope is to keep as much commonality to the River-class as possible in regard to munitions.

Yes, CAMM can go in MK.41 with the sleeve, but the Rivers will never do that, so it’s effectively a dead end. I am sad, obviously, because I love CAMM, but it’s also understandable. Supply chains, especially here, are important and keeping munitions common across vessels isn’t something you can just toss out.

The other potential option is MK.56 to fire ESSM. The previously mentioned Benito Juárez also had plans at one point to fit MK.56 as a traditional VLS, instead of the rows of launchers we typically see.

That would fulfill the self-protection capability and give them a bit of extra capability as part of a task force, allowing the Rivers to free up some cells traditionally dedicated to ESSM on the CDC.

That is certainly possible as an option, and can fit in the current demands if we decide against Strike-length VLS. You could still have room for MK.70 if you desire, but it no longer becomes as important of a need if these have some punch to their air defence capabilities.

These will be Canadian ships

To shift focus directly to Topshee’s interview, one of the main points about the CDC was that it would be a Canadian ship. It would be Canadian-designed, Canadian-equipped, and Canadian-made.

Sounds similar to the Vard marketing, but the general consensus falls here. There is a real opportunity to make a Canadian solution. The major shipyards have been vocal that their design teams are starved and ready for this, which is why Seaspan has been pushing for this project to move quicker.

Canadian-based companies like OSI, Geospectrum, MDA, and Score, Thales, and others have all stepped up in the NSS already to support Canada's future fleet, and the belief is that there are many more waiting for the chance to jump on the opportunity.

Topshee’s comments were not just an attempt to sell the project. It is the active belief in the project, and from all accounts, industry has been very supportive and hands-on with what can be done, and helping to draft the requirements of CDC.

Of course, Topshee didn’t go as far as to mention CMS-330 is a Lockheed product. I don’t blame him for not wanting to bring it up! Especially not when trying to sell this as a hedge against American interference.

Some will say that means no American, but what it actually means is diversifying the core systems away as much as possible. It’s hard to do that on the armament side in some regards, though when it comes to things like the sensors? That’s entirely easy to do.

I do worry about that messaging though, especially when talking about how things could end up better. That opens the door, to me, for politicians to create excuses for why we should cut the Rivers—and lord forbid we have enough media doing that already.

However, I get the angle, and at a time when the project will soon be brought up for funding, you can't ignore opportunities for sell, especially for a project that Topshee has been vocal is his baby, his pet project.

The point being, this will be a Canadian vessel as much as possible, with a focus on Canadian systems and suppliers. We are unlikely to take a foreign design and modify it. This is not wanted for a variety of reasons.

Thoughts

The project is coming up quickly, and decisions will need to be made soon. We can see already the path the project is going and where we will likely end up.

This will be a Canadian ship, a clean-slate, purpose-built design tailored to our unique needs and situations. It will be a second-tier combatant optimized for Continental Defence while still being able to be deployed in a capacity beyond Canada.

It will still be modular enough to take over the Kingston-class duties while also being optimized for autonomous and unmanned operations. The final design will likely include accommodation for these systems in several ways.

It is about where I was hoping it would land. It isn’t a light frigate—that was always a concern of mine—while still being far more than the Kingston it is replacing to not be a waste of time.

I don’t think the requirements will change much. I don’t think we will see many massive changes. The big one remains the VLS and how that is handled. That is right now the big question mark in all of this.

Does it sound a lot like the Vigilance 75 I have criticized before? Yes—though with a more realistic expectation of the combat capability, and a reasonable step back from the containerization focus of that design.

A nice, reasonable Corvette. I don’t think many could argue against that. Some will be mad with this middle approach, and some will be upset it isn’t a second-tier combatant in line with Australia, but it fits us and the unique demands we have.

Do we need a light frigate that is essentially another Halifax? No. We have fifteen Rivers for that. Can we get a lot out of a modular, scalable vessel thats larger than a Kingston but still able to defend itself? Absolutely. It’s the balance that we need to expect when these demands clash.

Do I still wish we had a modular vessel to act more in line with the Kingstons? Yeah. My opinion doesn’t change there—just as how I think we need two or three subsea support vessels.

However, if we are getting a Corvette and sticking to this fleet plan? This is where I can be content and happy. I think to many keep trying to make these what they are not, or are to restrictive in their thinking of what this could be.

They'll be able to take over the tasks that the Kingston have done like MCM and Constabulary Duties at a reasonable cost and demand.

However, they will also be able to now take on a more proactive, supporting role in ASW, Armed Patrol, and Autonomous operations while having a limited capacity to go up North or operate in a Task Force as needed.

That to me is a nice sweet spot for what we need.

---

EDIT: I have been requested to compile this info for easier viewing and sharing. As such I decided to do a Wikipedia style infobox so people can get an idea of the basics of the design!