Oh, absolutely lol. I would honestly be surprised to see a full flight-deck as a requirement when the RFI eventually drops. Lord knows we already don't have enough Cyclones for what the future fleet will require!
Sounds like they have a design they actually want (2,000+ tonne) and are still constrained by the NSS's 1000 tonne limit for non-Irving combatants. I expect they'll push hard to have the NSS ammended to get the ship they want. Whether or not government agrees that the NORAD integration and strike length VLS are worth the cost and hassle (hassle of re-doing NSS contracts to give a 2000+ tonne warship to another yard, that is) remains to be seen.
Indeed, let me say, I don't expect all this to stay the same. I also plan to do a deeper dive at this, with more thoughtful analysis later this week.
There will be something here that gives, unless the navy plans to go really in to containerization, there will have to be something.
Combining this with the other requirements spoke of in passing (range, endurance, speed, etc) makes this a hard shoe to fill, and I sincerely believe that we will see some changes before the final product.
However, proposals like these, even if they aren't final, to be put out there are still not good for the project. This one is a very big, tough ask. There is a chance they have a very good plan in place, with a far better understanding than I have on what is available technology wise.
I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume this is the real proposal they will be presenting, at least until it changes!
Will the government go for it? That is something I can't answer.
One thing about containerization, you really have to fight for it as a concept, but the navy has had success elsewhere with it, and many further plans to utilize the concept. This isn't new for them.
Would definetly make me peeved if my containerized corvette didn't get the funding for the containers though!
I do think we should be talking more about the 1000 ton limit though. This wouldn't be the only project greatly influenced by it, if that is the case here.
Oh I don't think they have any expectation of all of those capabilities fitting on a 1,000 tonne hull. I was speculating that the Capt probably isn't allowed to talk about ships over 1000 tonnes not being built by Irving: It would be a breach of the current contract.
Between the lines, I took his presentation to mean: "these are all the capabilities we want if we can ammend the NSS ro give a 2,000 tonne combatant to another shipyard, but I have to say 1,000 tonnes for now because legal is worried about a breach of contract suit"
But hey, I'm an accountant not a naval architect. Maybe they do actually think there is a way to do it at 1,000ish tonnes.
I actually don't know the legality there. Might be time for me to try amd brush up on the NSS contract! 🤣
Vigilance comes very close to this... It is under 1500 tons, fits the crew requirements, and have the sensors and 'proposal' for what they want, but its coming very close, and there are sacrifices and asterix all over the place.
It's entirely possible the navy goes that route, but its very risky, with a lot of unproven technologies, and a lot of hope put into it.
I suppose the Vigilance does come close, that's true. For some reason I took the Capt to mean strike length mk41 VLS, rather than meeting that capability with the containerized mk70. But he does not say mk41 at all. I think I had it confused as I've only ever heard "strike length" used to refer to the mk41.
Mk.41 is the only one who uses the term, AFAIK, unless we're gonna make it a unofficial thing for Aster lol. I use Mk.41 and Mk.70 relatively interchangeably sometimes, so I apologize if there is confusion in what I wrote.
Mk.70, at the end of the day, is just Mk.41 in a container, so I understand if they are putting them both in the same catagory. That puts Vigilance at least in the discussion, if not the one platform that fits this all.
Although if you want it to be a full combatant + be an autonomous mothership than we'll run in to issues. Vigilance removed the mission bay from the seems of it to extend out the mission deck to fit FEU.
Oh yeah in capabilities terms it's just a different box for the same thing. I was thinking in terms of my assumption about displacement being 2000+ tonnes: a ship with a full flight deck and a mk41 complex somewhere on the ship is likely going to be a lot heavier than a ship that does not have the mk41, but can slap some mk70s down on the flight deck if needed.
Any 1000 ton desire, or above it to a small degree, that the navy seems to want it almost comical for the roles they want them to play. Granted, as I've warned before, CMMC is an unfunded concept, very much a want for the navy, whom believes there is a shortage of combatants and minor vessels, but unfunded, and staffed by the equivalent of two guys and a napkin.
Case in point, I don't expect the current iteration to stay. I expect lines will be drawn somewhere. Vard likes to act like they have this, which is what they certainly want, and if they want to prounce around their fantasy concept I won't stop them, but you won't be catching this boy singing its praises.
For a project of such significance, perhaps the one shot we have at a potential second tier of combatants, I wouldn't be entrusting Vard and Vigilance 70 to come with all their promises about their 1000 ton Type 31 and stick to them, but it is very clear, as I've heard it talked about, that Vigilance is the kind of initial concept they're thinking.
Now, that might change. Vard has a larger design out now as Vigilance 100, though I know little of it. That might be a sign that some mentality is changing, and a larger, more corvette styled design might be on the table but we don't know until someone says something. They might also just be preparing to brand their combatants under the Vigilance banner.
I agree with you on many aspects here. I don't think a vessel like this needs a full flight deck, especially if we are heavily leaning on a containerized platform. Need to maximize space there in my opinion, at best a flight deck for UAS, something small.
I like you mentioned Gowind though! Although I'm more of a MEKO fan myself. 😋
1. The concept focus is on MAX flexibility of missions. Using a very containerized approach and use automation along with semi-autonomous systems.
2. Further, the new ship will operate independently in littoral defence and bluewater escort missions (I presume) e.g. supply ship escort etc. As well as a sidekick to the River class to add punch to a surface action group
4. Interesting that one mission is Space strike and anti-ballistic missile defence. I love that capability notion! I can see a CMMC loaded with SM-3's in Mk.70 containers aimed and fired when attached to River Class sensors but how practical is it to also use future NORAD shore-based sensors? Does this mean Canada is locked into AEGIS ashore? Also, I was thinking NORAD ground installations where mostly in the North? Does this mean they are planning them for the south also? If so, sounds like the old star-wars ABM defence is back, just different tech?
5. How survivable/stealthy will the CMMC be vs. the economics of building them (at scale)? Could a new top tier (automation centric) integrator from an allied country buy or partner a Canadian shipyard to advance this project faster and cheaper?
My supposition is that the whiteboard has all the great brainstorming ideas on it right now. And some of those ideas are mutually exclusive (like tonnage and length).
If there is no large flight deck (UAV one only) and no real hangar I can see a Strike length VLS working as it would run from below the freeboard up to the top of where a hangar would be. 8 cell.
Looking at the Gowind as a design touchpoint. These ships would be 2500 ton and have half of the frigates sensor package (Saab AMB radar, one Fire Control radar, one sonar system). Deck gun of 40 or 57mm. Maybe RAM. CMS 330. All other capabilites would be bolt on or containerized.
CODOD engineering arangment.
Perhaps a small USV launch and recovery area higher up on the ship like with the rMCM program from Belgium.
Which means the flight deck area becomes muti function and containerized for missions.
Oh, absolutely lol. I would honestly be surprised to see a full flight-deck as a requirement when the RFI eventually drops. Lord knows we already don't have enough Cyclones for what the future fleet will require!
Sounds like they have a design they actually want (2,000+ tonne) and are still constrained by the NSS's 1000 tonne limit for non-Irving combatants. I expect they'll push hard to have the NSS ammended to get the ship they want. Whether or not government agrees that the NORAD integration and strike length VLS are worth the cost and hassle (hassle of re-doing NSS contracts to give a 2000+ tonne warship to another yard, that is) remains to be seen.
Indeed, let me say, I don't expect all this to stay the same. I also plan to do a deeper dive at this, with more thoughtful analysis later this week.
There will be something here that gives, unless the navy plans to go really in to containerization, there will have to be something.
Combining this with the other requirements spoke of in passing (range, endurance, speed, etc) makes this a hard shoe to fill, and I sincerely believe that we will see some changes before the final product.
However, proposals like these, even if they aren't final, to be put out there are still not good for the project. This one is a very big, tough ask. There is a chance they have a very good plan in place, with a far better understanding than I have on what is available technology wise.
I give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume this is the real proposal they will be presenting, at least until it changes!
Will the government go for it? That is something I can't answer.
One thing about containerization, you really have to fight for it as a concept, but the navy has had success elsewhere with it, and many further plans to utilize the concept. This isn't new for them.
Would definetly make me peeved if my containerized corvette didn't get the funding for the containers though!
I do think we should be talking more about the 1000 ton limit though. This wouldn't be the only project greatly influenced by it, if that is the case here.
Oh I don't think they have any expectation of all of those capabilities fitting on a 1,000 tonne hull. I was speculating that the Capt probably isn't allowed to talk about ships over 1000 tonnes not being built by Irving: It would be a breach of the current contract.
Between the lines, I took his presentation to mean: "these are all the capabilities we want if we can ammend the NSS ro give a 2,000 tonne combatant to another shipyard, but I have to say 1,000 tonnes for now because legal is worried about a breach of contract suit"
But hey, I'm an accountant not a naval architect. Maybe they do actually think there is a way to do it at 1,000ish tonnes.
I actually don't know the legality there. Might be time for me to try amd brush up on the NSS contract! 🤣
Vigilance comes very close to this... It is under 1500 tons, fits the crew requirements, and have the sensors and 'proposal' for what they want, but its coming very close, and there are sacrifices and asterix all over the place.
It's entirely possible the navy goes that route, but its very risky, with a lot of unproven technologies, and a lot of hope put into it.
I suppose the Vigilance does come close, that's true. For some reason I took the Capt to mean strike length mk41 VLS, rather than meeting that capability with the containerized mk70. But he does not say mk41 at all. I think I had it confused as I've only ever heard "strike length" used to refer to the mk41.
Mk.41 is the only one who uses the term, AFAIK, unless we're gonna make it a unofficial thing for Aster lol. I use Mk.41 and Mk.70 relatively interchangeably sometimes, so I apologize if there is confusion in what I wrote.
Mk.70, at the end of the day, is just Mk.41 in a container, so I understand if they are putting them both in the same catagory. That puts Vigilance at least in the discussion, if not the one platform that fits this all.
Although if you want it to be a full combatant + be an autonomous mothership than we'll run in to issues. Vigilance removed the mission bay from the seems of it to extend out the mission deck to fit FEU.
Oh yeah in capabilities terms it's just a different box for the same thing. I was thinking in terms of my assumption about displacement being 2000+ tonnes: a ship with a full flight deck and a mk41 complex somewhere on the ship is likely going to be a lot heavier than a ship that does not have the mk41, but can slap some mk70s down on the flight deck if needed.
Any 1000 ton desire, or above it to a small degree, that the navy seems to want it almost comical for the roles they want them to play. Granted, as I've warned before, CMMC is an unfunded concept, very much a want for the navy, whom believes there is a shortage of combatants and minor vessels, but unfunded, and staffed by the equivalent of two guys and a napkin.
Case in point, I don't expect the current iteration to stay. I expect lines will be drawn somewhere. Vard likes to act like they have this, which is what they certainly want, and if they want to prounce around their fantasy concept I won't stop them, but you won't be catching this boy singing its praises.
For a project of such significance, perhaps the one shot we have at a potential second tier of combatants, I wouldn't be entrusting Vard and Vigilance 70 to come with all their promises about their 1000 ton Type 31 and stick to them, but it is very clear, as I've heard it talked about, that Vigilance is the kind of initial concept they're thinking.
Now, that might change. Vard has a larger design out now as Vigilance 100, though I know little of it. That might be a sign that some mentality is changing, and a larger, more corvette styled design might be on the table but we don't know until someone says something. They might also just be preparing to brand their combatants under the Vigilance banner.
I agree with you on many aspects here. I don't think a vessel like this needs a full flight deck, especially if we are heavily leaning on a containerized platform. Need to maximize space there in my opinion, at best a flight deck for UAS, something small.
I like you mentioned Gowind though! Although I'm more of a MEKO fan myself. 😋
Great bit of intel, thanks Noah!
As I understand the info you shared:
1. The concept focus is on MAX flexibility of missions. Using a very containerized approach and use automation along with semi-autonomous systems.
2. Further, the new ship will operate independently in littoral defence and bluewater escort missions (I presume) e.g. supply ship escort etc. As well as a sidekick to the River class to add punch to a surface action group
3. In terms of size (tons) and crew size, a complement of 40 seems reasonable - not that big a stretch really. A couple of other examples to compare in terms of size/complement/automation (although different roles) are the Dutch Multi-mission support vessels: https://www.twz.com/news-features/new-dutch-navy-support-vessels-will-be-missile-toting-wingmen-to-frigates
and the New FFM sucMogami-class frigatescecding the Mogami-class frigates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_FFM
4. Interesting that one mission is Space strike and anti-ballistic missile defence. I love that capability notion! I can see a CMMC loaded with SM-3's in Mk.70 containers aimed and fired when attached to River Class sensors but how practical is it to also use future NORAD shore-based sensors? Does this mean Canada is locked into AEGIS ashore? Also, I was thinking NORAD ground installations where mostly in the North? Does this mean they are planning them for the south also? If so, sounds like the old star-wars ABM defence is back, just different tech?
5. How survivable/stealthy will the CMMC be vs. the economics of building them (at scale)? Could a new top tier (automation centric) integrator from an allied country buy or partner a Canadian shipyard to advance this project faster and cheaper?
*In Dr. Emmett Brown voice* 105m and 1000 ton?!?!?!?! Strike length Mk-41s are over 25' long!!!
I can't see this NOT being mk70 based.
Look with these requirements I ain't putting anything past them to at least TRY to do.
Although I will note here, this is factual.
My supposition is that the whiteboard has all the great brainstorming ideas on it right now. And some of those ideas are mutually exclusive (like tonnage and length).
If there is no large flight deck (UAV one only) and no real hangar I can see a Strike length VLS working as it would run from below the freeboard up to the top of where a hangar would be. 8 cell.
Looking at the Gowind as a design touchpoint. These ships would be 2500 ton and have half of the frigates sensor package (Saab AMB radar, one Fire Control radar, one sonar system). Deck gun of 40 or 57mm. Maybe RAM. CMS 330. All other capabilites would be bolt on or containerized.
CODOD engineering arangment.
Perhaps a small USV launch and recovery area higher up on the ship like with the rMCM program from Belgium.
Which means the flight deck area becomes muti function and containerized for missions.
No way that's 1000 tons.