Shipbucket

With the announcement of Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy in October of 2011 there has been little speculation regarding what type and what capabilities the future combat ship will have. I'd like you to take this opportunity to get the conversations flowing by submitting a drawing ofwhat you think Canada should design and build.

A few rules to follow:
-Only 1 submission per member, and I'll ask moderators to remove any multiple submissions by an individual.
-It must be a realistic design (no outer space, time warping, able to fly, with 2,000 guns designs) with some leeway given to possible technologies available within the next 15yrs.
-Displacement must between be a minimum of 5,000 metric tonnes and 7,000 metric tonnes
-The design must use a common hull with designs able to be either outfitted as a destroyer(4) or a frigate(12)
-Costs should be reasonable and remain at under 1 Billion per destroyer and under 700 million per frigate (these figures may change if I'm totally out to lunch )
-Missions vary between coastal patrol, ASW, AAW, and Carrier Escort. If possible littoral missions with limited shore bombardment could be considered.

I'll leave radars and armament up to you but they must be NATO compatible.

Otherwise, look forward to some interesting and possibly influential designs.

While I like the idea behind this thread, there's two problems. Designations like these are meaningless anachronisms and largely interchangeable. You'll have to specify what makes one different from the other.
We have no way of evaluating this.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I'm also leery of folks who post a thread saying "design me something, go!"

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Well, we do have a precedent for it though it didn't start out like that.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

This thread is just me being curious as to what could be possible. I can't think of a better forum to ask the question. There's abundant knowledge and plenty of excellent artists which will make for some truly "possible" designs. There's nothing to be suspicious about, no ulterior motives etc.

Besides I suspected there may be some questioning so I asked the administrator's permission first prior to posting.

The common hull mentioned comes from stated outlines on the future replacements for Canada's present destroyers and Frigates. Simply put they desire one platform that could be outfitted as either a destroyer or a frigate.

Yes, I get that but what is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer in this case?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Well the line between what is a frigate and what is a destroyer has blurred over time I imagine that when the idea for a single hulled / multiple rolled hull was devised those lines weren't quite as blurred. My take is essentially a destroyer will be more of a command, missile boat, anti air / ship to ship / ship to shore, while the frigates will continue with limited air to air, escort duties, and ASW. This means the destroyer version will be a more aggressive platform with more capabilities(tomahawks?) while the frigates, though still capable, would kit out closer to what Canada's present frigates can do.

Now applying this to a single hull could mean a larger hull able to accommodate the destroyer configuration but only scaling back the capabilities for the frigate. Think of starting with a destroyer and scaling back to a frigate as opposed to scaling up a frigate platform to match a destroyer.

Just think of a plain 2 wheel extended cab truck as the frigate and you add 4 wheel drive, suspension, mudder tires etc to make it a destroyer.

I advice an LCF/Nansen/F100/hobart hull then.... light destroyer/heavy frigate hull, with space for mk 41 VLS, an helicopter and an large main gun. structure and weapons fit can be the difference between the types then.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

So what you're looking for is a contemporary version of the Spruance/Kidd combo then?

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

What I'm looking for is what someone else thinks it should be. I didn't want to mention any specific ships so as not to pigeon hole everyone's thinking but yeah a (edit) hull which could be outfitted as either a Spruance or a Kidd.