General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

Ramlaen · October 19, 2018

Irving Shipbuilding and Public Services and Procurement Canada have announced that BAE-Lockheed Martin is the industry team which scored the highest with their bid to provide the 15 new warships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The consortium is the “preferred bidder” according to the federal government, for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Its design is the Type 26. That selection will now set off negotiations which in turn will – if all is successful – produce a contract. The entire project is worth $60 billion, with an estimated 60 per cent for the actual ship.

Belesarius · October 19, 2018

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Irving Shipbuilding and Public Services and Procurement Canada have announced that BAE-Lockheed Martin is the industry team which scored the highest with their bid to provide the 15 new warships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The consortium is the “preferred bidder” according to the federal government, for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Its design is the Type 26. That selection will now set off negotiations which in turn will – if all is successful – produce a contract. The entire project is worth $60 billion, with an estimated 60 per cent for the actual ship.

So overpriced Type 26s it is... FML.

Xlucine · October 20, 2018

COMMONWEALTH T26 USER GROUP GO. Are the canucks using S2087 like the UK & Aus, or do they have their own solution? A common sonar system over 3/5 eyes sounds handy.

This takes the number of T26s and derivatives to 32, which is significantly more than FREMM (unless the US buys it)

Belesarius · October 20, 2018

22 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

COMMONWEALTH T26 USER GROUP GO. Are the canucks using S2087 like the UK & Aus, or do they have their own solution? A common sonar system over 3/5 eyes sounds handy.

This takes the number of T26s and derivatives to 32, which is significantly more than FREMM (unless the US buys it)

As long as we don't fuck it up and over Canadianize it.

It' looks to be a pretty capable ship, and if we can manage to keep costs down somehow and not fuck it up too badly, they should be a solid backbone for the RCN for years to come.

The more I learn about the SeaCeptor system, the more I like it, and I like the fact that the design has decent anti-swarm protection with 2 30mm broadside mounts, along with the CIWS.

Belesarius · October 20, 2018

UN Naval institute piece on bringing back tactical nukes to the Navy.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-10/bring-tactical-nukes-back-fleet?fbclid=IwAR0WVIg0yY2mwRQ--M3QZDxVjX8yyqPIBy0Sx03jqTEwfKrkEgYIUlHxnuU

LostCosmonaut · October 20, 2018

Australia's new submarines are very expensive; https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/australias-government-under-attack-over-submarine-deal/

The report claims that Australia’s new submarine fleet will cost far more than necessary. “We will pay far too much for a boat that will do far too little,” Hugh White, author of the study, said on September 27, during a presentation of the report in Canberra. “Our calculation in the report is that, in 2016 dollars, these 12 boats will cost us $40bn, plus $6bn for the combat system – well over $3bn a boat. In every major project like this, the costs escalate.”

However, according to the report, the bigger risk with sticking to the modified Barracuda-class is that “Australia will be left with a submarine capability that is either seriously inadequate or, in the worst case, non-existent for several years.” The report states:

Engineering experts consider the technical risks around the Shortfin Barracuda to be high. It will be a very large conventional submarine and the engineering challenges are formidable. Most surprisingly, the present concept design does not incorporate modern batteries or AIP, considered by most experts as essential in a future operational environment where submarine detection technologies will have improved significantly.

For comparison, per wikipedia, Virginia class subs are $2.7-3.2 billion per unit depending on the fit (not that they would be a perfect fit, since Australia has virtually nil nuclear infrastructure, and almost certainly not enough manpower to support 12 Virginias).

Xlucine · October 20, 2018

The "modern batteries" dig is a little harsh, given that AFAIK japan is the only nation to improve on lead-acid (and then only recently):

https://www.janes.com/article/83625/japan-launches-first-soryu-class-submarine-equipped-with-lithium-ion-batteries

The whole procurement is a joke though, they're costing twice what an astute boat does

LostCosmonaut · October 21, 2018

It's not showing up until the 2030s, but it's not too late to start building hype for the Virginia replacement; https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

The Navy’s next class fast attack submarine will be designed for a return to blue-water great power competition, where the ability to
support forces ashore is less important than operating in the open ocean hunting rival submarines, according to an analysis of the Navy’s 30 Year shipbuilding plan conducted by Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

At least at this early stage, this new sub looks more like a Seawolf successor than a simple Virginia improvement (though the article does mention that the new boat will replace the Block VII Virginias). I'm curious about whether it will use the S1B like Columbia (S1B-2?), or a new S1F reactor.

Also linked in that article is that the USN is considering SSGNs; https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

Alzoc · October 21, 2018

Not surprised it will be costly though.

Australia chose conventional subs using a SSN hull, which are to be built with transfer of technology on installations that never built something of that scale.

Add on top of that the cost needed to adapt the combat system to American weapons, and it's no wonder that the thing is expensive.

I don't know where they found that the subs would lack "modern" battery or AIP system though, that would be beyond stupid (or that was a massive procurement failure).

Xlucine · October 21, 2018

I'm not convinced by AIP systems, they're a bit naff (enough for a couple weeks at ~4kn per janes, and then you need to go back to port to refuel) and strong oxidisers on submarines have a long history of killing people - I can see why aus wouldn't want one on their subs. Li batteries would also add a lot to the cost, you could easily be looking at hundreds of tonnes of batteries on board (and that'll need replacing in a few years).

IMO a big RTG is a much superior option for low speed, if you can't get a full SSN, but it would cost a lot

10 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

It's not showing up until the 2030s, but it's not too late to start building hype for the Virginia replacement; https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

At least at this early stage, this new sub looks more like a Seawolf successor than a simple Virginia improvement (though the article does mention that the new boat will replace the Block VII Virginias). I'm curious about whether it will use the S1B like Columbia (S1B-2?), or a new S1F reactor.

Also linked in that article is that the USN is considering SSGNs; https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

Quote

However, the new SSN(X) will take the place of a Block 7 Virginia-class, and the planned design appears to prize increased torpedo storage over the VPM vertical launch capability. The new SSN(X) plans do not include VPM capability. When compared to the Block V Virginia-class submarines – the first built with the VPM – the CBO states the new SSN(X) will have 25 more torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles in the torpedo room.

No vertical launch at all? Odd, I don't see how space for a VPM precludes ASW capability

Belesarius · October 25, 2018

France to made decision on replacing it's carrier.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-military/france-begins-deliberations-on-new-aircraft-carrier-idUSKCN1MX1CV

Alzoc · October 25, 2018

1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

France to made decision on replacing it's carrier.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-military/france-begins-deliberations-on-new-aircraft-carrier-idUSKCN1MX1CV

Basically the design study just started.

The questions asked are nuclear propulsion or conventional and electromagnetic or steam catapult?

Conventional and steam catapult are obviously extremely unlikely.

It's worth noting that the CdG use two K15 reactor which were designed for subs, if the new design end up being significantly larger, a new, more powerful reactor may be needed.

The tricky part will be making sure that a wide range of aircraft can operate from it.

It will have to be able to launch the Rafale (which will be near the end of it's service life in 2040 but still not completely phased out), as well as the future jet and UAV from the Franco-German SCAF program.

On top of that Parly, said that the carrier should be interoperable with our European allies, which most likely mean Italy and the UK with their F-35B.

Now I guess that we could reinforce the deck so that they can land vertically, but to launch from it mean we would have to add a ski-jump on top of the catapults and I don't really know how one would do that (a ski-jump that could be raised and lowered at the end of catapult?).

The other possibility would be that they'll try to sell the naval versions for the SCAF and that anybody who will buy either the fighter-bomber or the UAV will be promised a right to operate them from the future carrier. That however would exclude both Italy and the UK since they would need F-35C rather than the F-35B they have and those two country are the only ones which have a capable navy (beside France) in Europe :/

Parly ended her speech by saying that "With those study we will determine how many units will be needed for both France and Europe" so it might hint that if several carriers are built they could become the core of European naval groups.

All in all, both the new carrier and the SCAF are extremely ambitious program which will have an impact on each other.

So I'm really crossing finger that both will succeed, because if one of the two fail we will be left with no carrier group for a long time.