Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Canada, future choices
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6218		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  llamaman2 [ August 13th, 2015, 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Canada, future choices
Okay, finally got mostly finished with this one. There's more AU stuff in the works, but for now, enjoy.

Canada 2020

After the 2015 General Election saw Stephen Harper’s Conservative government defeated by a resurgent opposition, the new administration began focusing on the needs of the Canadian Forces rather than the purchase of flashy, expensive vanity projects (*cough* F-35 *cough*). The Army chiefs explained that they required new gun and rocket artillery, the replacement of the legacy Leopard 1 tanks and derived engineering vehicles. Admirals focused on the replacement surface ships, amphibious warfare vessels and a new maritime helicopter *now*, not when Sikorsky felt like it. Finally the Air Force stated the country’s need for a minimum of 100 fast jets, a new fixed-wing search and rescue type plus dedicated close air support and airborne radar patrol aircraft, the latter as force multipliers to make better use of other assets.

With the available budget set, the new government went to work planning the country’s defences...
Author:  llamaman2 [ August 13th, 2015, 11:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Single Class Surface Combatant

Split into two distinct groups, three guided missile ‘destroyers’ and twelve general-purpose ‘frigates’. After landing a deal with Danish shipbuilder Odense Staalskibsværft for the development of these ships, all fifteen were built in Canadian yards. Based on the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. Basic armament of 1 x 76mm Oto-Melara Super Rapido gun; 2 x 20mm Vulcan Phalanx Block 1B CIWS; 4 x torpedo tubes for Mark 46 ASW torpedoes. Provision for up to 6 x 12.7mm Browning M2 HMG.

Province-class destroyer
SMART-L air/surface search phased array radar; APAR fire-control radar; 32-cell Mark 41 VLS for mix of Aster 30, quad-packed ESSM and VL-ASROC; 48-cell Mark 56 VLS for ESSM; 8 x Naval Strike Missile.

[ img ]

River-class frigate
SMART-S search radar; SE APAR fire-control; 32-cell Mark 41 VLS for mix of quad-packed ESSM and VL-ASROC; 24-cell Mark 56 VLS for ESSM; 16 x Naval Strike Missile.

[ img ]
Author:  llamaman2 [ August 13th, 2015, 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Magnificent-class assault carrier

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia was contracted for the new amphibious warfare ships. Built in Spain, the two vessels were based on the successful Juan Carlos I design also purchased by Australia. The two ships were capable of operating as amphibious assault ships, antisubmarine carriers and light aircraft carriers, depending on payload and requirements. Armament consists of three Phalanx Block 1B CIWS, three 12.7mm HMG and a single Sea RAM RIM-116 launcher. Capacity in amphibious warfare role is over 900 troops, up to 46 tanks or equivalent of other armoured vehicles, and up to 25 helicopters; in normal combat roles a mix of STOVL combat aircraft and helicopters are carried.

[ img ]
Author:  llamaman2 [ August 13th, 2015, 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Bluejay-class mine countermeasures vessel

The new minesweeping and hunting ships are based on the Finnish Katanpaa-class vessels. An Italian design, ten were purchased off the shelf for mine warfare and secondary patrol duties. Armament: 1 x 40mm Bofors gun, 2 x 12.7mm HMG.

[ img ]
Author:  JSB [ August 13th, 2015, 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Nice new AU 8-)

(my only comments would be, can you move the RAM on the patrol ship ? would it not be better to move crane down/side and fit above hangar to have a clear landing deck in bad weather ? and on the 76mm guns on frigates would a radar deflecting cover not make sense ?)
Author:  adenandy [ August 13th, 2015, 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Nice looking Ships llamaman and interesting AU :!:

Looking forward to seeing new Air and Land Assets ;)

But in the mean time, well done :D
Author:  acelanceloet [ August 13th, 2015, 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
nice, but I have some questions/comments:
in general:
- take a good look at your recoloured radars, satcoms and other equipment, as you right now have shaded areas which are lighter then the base colour and other lines which mismatch the original drawings.

province:
- as far as is known, ASTER does not work with the APAR. there might be ways around that, but why would you want to? the standard missile is available and already in the canadian inventory.
- I am not certain there would be no design changes required or at the very least handy for fitting phalanxes.
- check if the sonar fitted is capable of handling ASROC, as I am not certain it is.

river:
- I think the SMART-S Mk 2 would best be placed on the foremast as well, somewhat more in line with the Absalon class. having the SEAPAR radar might not be needed with the SMART-S Mk 2 on board (IIRC it was paired with the Mk 1 in earlier concepts, and the absalon does without)
- check if the sonar fitted is capable of handling ASROC, as I am not certain it is.
- if you call the province a destroyer, is the river not a lot of ship for the task and role of frigate? whyat do you have on board requiring so much space? mission bays like the absalon? because what you have on board now could easily fit on a ship half the tonnage, I think

magnificent:
- I suspect it would be an bad idea to fit SEARAM instead of the Mk 49 launcher. your ships radar systems can easily do the guidance required for this
- I would recommend updating the old drawing of the juan carlos design a bit to bring it up to standar with the first 2 ships you posted. right now it looks bad just because it is not as good, while a little bit of shading, black/grey line swaps and detailing could get you a lot nicer a ship.
- I would prefer the SMART-L drawing on a carrier, acting as flagship, especially since it is already in your fleet.
- the cargo doors fitted really need an update, to an flush type or one of the doors fitted on the bay class or the rotterdam LDP's
- the RAM launcher could be placed on much better locations (for example the stern)
- I have doubts about those bow thrusters being big enough

DeWolfe:
- I would suspect an (current in production) 57mm stealth turret instead of the one you have now (you have it listed as Mk 3 which was IIRC the stealth)
- the RAM on the stern is in the worst position ever for a ship like this. here it makes sense to have the SEARAM though.
- the crane looks a tad oversized (if I compare it with that on the holland class OPV) and you might be able to fold it away on the side of the superstructure a bit more.
- your helicopter currently seems not to fit in your folding hangar?
Author:  llamaman2 [ August 13th, 2015, 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
@Ace, thanks for the comments. The surface ships and armament are based on the current stated plans for Canadian forces re-equipment. I agree that it would make little sense to use ESSM and Aster 30, either Aster and Sea Ceptor or ESSM and Standard would be a better choice. But the news from Ottawa is that the RCN is looking at ordering the Aster 30 to replace the SM2 used on the Iroquois-class destroyers, the ships will be based on the Danish design and the guided missile variant will have the same Dutch radar fit as the de Zeven Provincien-class. Personally I thought a modified Fridtjof Nansen-class would've been a better bet to meet their requirements, but what do I know? ;)

The patrol ship is basically a slightly modified version of RP1's drawing. Doing some more research, it does look like the design's being changed and I've removed the drawing for now. That Sea RAM location was stupid I know, but finding a decent home for it was nigh-impossible. The unit was only to be a temporary bolt-on setup, added if and when the ships were needed for anything more than basic sovereignty patrols. I might redraw the thing from scratch once I can find a decent profile of the latest design.

As for the carrier/landing ship, well, the Juan Carlos and Canberra classes have minimal electronics and armament. Personally, I agree that they'd be better equipped with a long-range search radar and dedicated C&C systems but the odds are they'd just be used for hauling stuff around. I'm trying to keep the things here down to a tight budget, but I'll get on at implementing your suggestions re toning down black lines
Author:  acelanceloet [ August 13th, 2015, 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
any sources for the above plans? I'm interested how and why..... :P
Author:  eswube [ August 13th, 2015, 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Canada, future choices
Nice start of the AU. :)
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/