By Mikaël Perron, 4 August 2023
For those who keeps an eye on the development related to the CSC file, here is a link to an article on the UK Navy Lookout web site that discuss the latest info available about the Mission & boat Bay of the Type 26 frigate. https://www.navylookout.com/refining-the-requirements-for-the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay/
The article provides some detail on how the RN plans to exploit the Flexible Mission Space (FMS) of its future Type 26 frigate class. It seem like they consider many ways to use that space. One can wonder how far the thinking is advanced in Canada considering the usage of that space. Of course, one of the system they are looking at is of little interest to the RCN; they are looking at a modular torpedo launch system to be available. The Type 26 frigate is already design to be fitted with a permanent torpedo launch system on either side of the hangar and, contrary to the UK, Canada is planning on having the permanent torpedo tubes fitted. The article also covers the complexity of developing such a flexible space on a ship.
The article also makes me think about the CSC Destroyer idea suggested by David Dunlop. I believe that the only way to physically make it real would be to use that space. We don’t know how much the possibilities offered by this space will be exploit by the RCN. In order to augment the fire power of a selected number of CSC, the configuration of that area of the ship could be modified without adversely affect the ship weight and balance. According to the article, the space can receive a load of 150 tons. So, on some ships, the overhead crane could be removed and replaced by a standard boat davit for the future Multi-Role Boat (MRB) on either side of the ship. They could then install two eight cell tactical length MK-41 VLS along the center line of the ship. You would then have an extra 16 cell vls ready to receive any combination of Sea-ceptor, ESSM Block II, SM-2 Block IIIC, Tomahawk or else. Each empty 8 cell tactical length unit weight about 15,000 kg for a total of about 30 tons for 16 cell. I would say about 90 tons with the cells fully filled with war ordonnances. That would probably the only way to reasonably be able to increase the fire power of the CSC if need be!
Also, on the Navy Lookout web site, on the top menu, you can select Key topic/Type 26 and there are many interesting articles covering the ship including a well detailed description of the propulsion system that will be common to all Type 26 variant.
5 thoughts on “CSC Mission and Boat Bay”
Hello Mikaël. Your configuration to add a 16 cell MK 41 VLS system midships inside the MMB, although would certainly give more Extended Length missile cells for the CSC Type 26 Frigate as is, does not seem to be feasible and will basically cancel out the Multi-Mission Bay entirely. To take out the Mission Bay Handling System (MBHS) in favour of more Mk 41 VLS Cells, will just destroy what the MMB is designed to accomplish. The MMB & MBHS are very much an integral part of the Type 26 Frigate for all 3 Navies. There is so much potential for this space as the UK Navy Outlook article states for “future proofing” the frigates. My alternative to insert another 10 meter section to the CSC Frigate to insert a dedicated Extended Length 32 Cell Mk 41 system (forward of the MMB) and just aft of the 24 cell Sea Ceptor system (which could also be increased to 48 cells as well) and restore the 32 Cell Mk 41 VLS system forward would be a much better option. There would also be room topside to add another 8 x NSMs as the US Constellation class already has. Having this extra space would allow the CSC “Destroyer” to carry a total of over 100 missiles; much more than your 16 cells midships and 24 cell Mk 41 VLS system forward would accomplish and you would still be able to have the MMB/MBHS intact for all 15 CSC Frigates. What say you?
Hi David, First, it will be just a great thing the day they start building the CSC and even more the day we get all 15 of them just as the current design presents them. Anything different from the current plan is very unlikely to happen. To me the MBHS makes the CSC a Jack of all trades (master of none). It will possess best in class ASW and AAW sensors and should concentrate on being a ‘combatant’. You often compare the CSC to the Constellation class but the latter is not fitted with such an elaborate MBHS. This adds weight and impacts many ship system. The mine clearing, HA & DR and other side mission should be left to the MCDVs/MCDV replacement, AOPS, JSS and Asterix. In fact, just to mention it, I believe that Asterix should be commissioned, and a sister ship purchased; four AORs is a bare minimum for a fleet with global ambition. The Resolve class has plenty of space to be fitted with the same self-defence suite as the JSS. Canada should seriously consider to stand-up a Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary (RCFA) like the UK’S RFA to operate its tanker. The Asterix experience proved we can also do it. A civilian crew of professional mariners would be ideal to operate our fleet of tankers (RCN personnel would only be there for the weapon system and security detachment). It would free-up precious naval personnel to operate the ‘combat ship’.
If you would require increasing the fire power of a few CSC, I still believe that cancelling out the MBHS in favor of 16 vls cell is the most affordable way to do it and the way that would least affect the ship’s weight and balance characteristics. The extensive modifications you are proposing almost consist of completely redesigning the ship and probably at an incredibly crazy cost. Warships became so complex, there is no easy way to know how adversely the ship’s performances would be affected. If they want a ship with more fire power, they could build fewer CSC then tag along a future Type 83 destroyer? Hopefully, the RCN will receive 15 CSC without further delays, with a great combination of sensors, armed with the great combination of 30mm and 127mm gun, Sea Ceptor, ESSM, SM2 Block IIIC and TLAM missiles, MK54 torpedoes. We can also hope that the RCN will maximize the usage of the MBHS and that will not just be a big and almost empty boat hangar!
Mikael,
I don’t think it is a fiscally responsible option for the RCN to purchase the Asterix, let alone purchasing the proposed Obelix considering the prices that have been thrown around. In the November 2020 Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report titled “THE JOINT SUPPORT SHIP PROGRAM AND THE MV ASTERIX: A FISCAL ANALYSIS”, they had the following to say regarding buying Asterix and a potential sister.
“The MV Asterix was offered for purchase upon its delivery to the Government of Canada in 2018 at a base price of $658 million, or $724 million with applicable taxes. This purchase cost does not include any operations and maintenance or ancillary program management costs.”
“In principle, the government could decide to enter discussions with Federal Fleet Services to purchase the Asterix at the conclusion of the initial 5-year lease period, where the price may be discounted to account for the shorter service life remaining on the vessel. If purchased at the expiry of the contract agreement in 2022-23, we estimate it will cost the government $576 million, or $633 million with tax. To arrive at this figure, we assume the Asterix had a 40-year lifespan from the time of its conversion, discounting its value linearly for each of the 5 contract years and estimating a residual end-of-life value of $3 million.”
(I think the figure above is low balling as I don’t think Federal Fleet Services will give Canada any kind of ‘deal’)
“Alternatively, the government could opt to purchase the vessel upon delivery in 2023-2024. For this scenario, we estimate a purchase cost of $797 million for the Obelix. This estimate is based on the prior option to purchase the MV Asterix while adjusting for cost escalation that has occurred since the 2017-18 fiscal year, less reductions in cost due to shipyard learning and the removal of non-recurring engineering and design fees. This estimated purchase cost does not include any operations and maintenance or ancillary program management costs. In materials provided to the Parliamentary Budget Office, Chantier Davie Canada Inc. cited a potential purchase cost of $694 million, or approximately $763 million with applicable taxes, assuming completion of construction within the 2022 calendar year.”
The ship has sailed so to speak on a sister ship for Asterix, Davie is basically flush with future orders already and won’t have the time or space to do such a thing. Federal Fleet Services is not going to give Canada a deal on buying Asterix considering they can rent out her services abroad when our contact finally runs out. For what they want for the ship, Canada is likely better off going overseas and putting that money towards proper military spec resupply vessels instead of purchasing a heavily used converted civilian vessel and having another built. If Seaspan wasn’t so busy, I’d say double the JSS order but that won’t happen.
Hello Mikaël again. Ah yes! A great date when the RCN can “claim” this new CSC Fleet! The MMB & MBHS is what makes this frigate so unique. Yes, a “Jack Of All Trades (Missions) but Master of All”. What if for example, there is just not enough space in the hangar to place the CU-176 ‘Gargoyle” UAV drone inside the hangar? Then the drones would have to go into the MMB in 20 ft containers. This frigate has to be much more than just a platform to shoot missiles, guns and torpedoes at any target. It has to be a “true” Multi-Mission Frigate to accomplish government missions required of it. Yes, this frigates primary task will be as a “true” ASW ship with some AAW roles as well, but will also carry UAV & USV drones for OTHT and other ISR missions; XLUUVs for forward positioning and ASW surveillance; Mine Hunting and Mine Countermeasures equipment; 20-40 ft. containers for HA/DR missions along with Special Ops personnel with their RHIBs. These are just a few of their mission requirements that the MMB & MBHS can easily accomplish. There are so many more missions and configurations that have not even been thought of as yet. No, the MMB & MBHS will be critical to each and every one of the 15 CSC Frigates. Although simply “stretching” the CSC Frigate by 10 meters for at least a 32 MK 41 VLS cell system is not nearly as simple as it may appear, going from 2 to 4 Electric Motors along with careful weight balancing distribution along with the engineering by Naval Technical Engineers should be able to solve all of these challenges. Yes, the CSC “Destroyer” costs would be greater per ship (perhaps as much as $1B CAD per ship) for 4 CSC “Destroyers”, but you would only build 12 CSC Frigates as well. Your idea to “tag along” with the British future Type 83 Destroyer has merit. We would have to ask nicely though to let us play in their backyard (if they will let us) and “Canadianize” it of course. I’m not sure if the Type 83 will also have a MMB & MBHS but if not, it should have and Canada would have to insist on that. Cheers Mikaël!
Hey! Kind of agree with both of you. There is almost a 100% chance we will end up with only two supply ships for decades to come hoping that they won’t be in a maintenance cycle when emergency situation arises. As for the Asterix, if they were to purchase it, it would require some hard negotiations because the actual contracted cost to operate it is apparently way too expansive! But if we consider the ship’s capabilities, I don’t think it suffers the comparison with allies’ ships. It is doing a great job just like our US and UK allies’ civilian operating auxiliary ships.
On the other hand all 15 CSC will do the trick and we will hopefully maximise the MBHS usage to its optimum potential. On the ship acquisition front, the upcoming submarine acquisition project will be defining the future status of the RCN! Cheers!