The Arsenal Ships Have Arrived — And They're Not Canadian… Yet

jamesbezan @PierrePoilievre @JohnRustad4BC @Conservative_BC @CPC_HQ @Saab @LockheedMartin @Comd_RCN @RoyalCanNavy

🔵 SGT Arsenal Ship Doctrine Confirmed: Visby-Class MLU 2025

✅ Pocket Arsenal Ship Philosophy in Compact Form

SGT Vision: The modern naval battlefield demands affordable, stealthy, survivable Arsenal Ships — not lumbering legacy destroyers. Small hulls. Big punch. Modular minds. Built for stealth and attrition — not ceremony.

Visby Reality: The 640-ton Visby-class is now a fully realized Pocket Arsenal Ship, equipped with 36 CAMM missiles via 9 Lockheed Martin XLS VLS launch tubes — a true arsenal platform scaled to coastal and littoral warfare.

✅ Vertical Launch System (VLS): Arsenal Enabler

SGT Doctrine: A vessel cannot be called an Arsenal Ship without VLS integration.

Visby Execution: 3×3-cell Lockheed Martin XLS system enables quad-pack CAMM missiles and reserves growth space for CAMM-ER, decoys, or multi-role strike systems.

✅ CIWS Integration: Last-Layer Arsenal Defense

SGT Blueprint: All Arsenal Ships must include short-range terminal defenses (e.g., Phalanx, laser CIWS, or soft-kill decoys).

Visby Trajectory: With Saab’s radar and fire-control suite (CGAF + SOS 200), Visby is CIWS-ready — and has defined deck zones for Phalanx-style integration, confirming SGT’s “Layered Kill Mesh” Arsenal Model.

✅ Modularity & Combat Role Flexibility

SGT Framework: Arsenal Ships must support flexible mission payloads across AAW, ASuW, ASW, and EW.

Visby Delivery: Seamlessly supports:

Anti-Air: 36x CAMM (VLS)

Anti-Ship: RBS-15 Gungnir

ASW: Torpedo 47s, sonar suite

MCM: Smart mines, rocket launchers

Gunfire: 57mm Mk III (220 rpm)

Optional: Future Phalanx/Laser CIWS

✅ Interoperability & Sovereign Autonomy

SGT Design Principle: Arsenal Ships must serve both national defense and alliance integration — interchangeable yet sovereign.

Sweden’s Move: Full NATO IAMD alignment, yet maintains independent deterrence capability in the Baltic without requiring allied escort. A dual-purpose Arsenal Ship, as per SGT guidelines.

🖼️ SGT Picked Visby First — And Repeatedly

SGT featured the Visby-class corvette more than a dozen times across:

📰 Technical articles
📷 Visual concept posts
🎥 Strategic video breakdowns
🛡️ Arsenal doctrine proofs

📚 Comparative force architecture studies

This was no accident — SGT identified Visby as the ideal Arsenal Ship platform years ahead of mainstream defense analysts, because it fit SGT’s doctrine exactly: stealth, speed, survivability, attrition low cost model, low crew count/open to AI upgrades, helicopter pad > missile array conversion area, and scalable firepower — in a compact form.

📌 From the earliest SGT graphics to policy briefings, Visby was chosen, posted, and preserved as a blueprint for how small navies — including Canada’s — could leap ahead using intelligence, not tonnage.

📌Another high impact low cost attrition candidate similar in swarm capbility upgrade for small navies UK Type 31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate

Canada is currently paying $5.15 billion CAD per CSC over its lifecycle — a staggering sum when compared to the Type 31 frigate, which costs an estimated $1.2–1.5 billion CAD over 30 years. That means for the cost of 1 CSC, Canada could operate between 3.4 and 4.3 Type 31s — a 3–4× increase in hull count and coverage. Each Type 31 comes with 32+ VLS cells, so four Type 31s deliver 128+ missile cells versus the CSC’s 32–48 — a 2.5 to 4× firepower advantage.

When you factor in redundancy, speed of deployment, and modular mission flexibility, the comparison becomes overwhelming: for the same budget, Canada could field 4x the ships, gain up to 4x the firepower, and establish persistent presence across 4x the geography. This is not a downgrade — it’s a total upgrade in survivability, responsiveness, and firepower per dollar.

The SGT doctrine proves it: in a 21st-century maritime battle-space, smart attrition beats legacy prestige.

🧠 SGT Arsenal Doctrine — Now Operational

This is more than an upgrade. This is a validation of the SGT-developed Pocket Arsenal Ship model — born in Canada, now sailing in the Baltic.

🛠 SGT laid it out:

Vertical Launch Integration (Lockheed Martin XLS)
Layered Kill Mesh (VLS + CIWS)
Modular Combat Payloads
Strategic Interop with Sovereign Core
Full-spectrum role delivery in under 1,000 tons

And now Sweden has confirmed the SGT system.

📍 SGT Validation Event — Visby-Class Arsenal Ship (2025)

Strategic Convergence Confirmed. SGT Arsenal Ship Doctrine Realized.

And have you seen the price on this? It’s like getting Ferrari performance — at Corvette cost. (Literally)

What if this happens more then people realize that global leaders align with SGT doctrine !?! Who has the full map of SGT’s full institutional sway !!! ?

And can you imagine what would happen to the Canadian military if SGT designed the upgrades !?!

Either it won’t work. Or you defeat everyone! Do you do high stakes! 😀

“SGT & Saab. You know they are the best and interoperable. Because Canada and Sweden are the best and interoperable. Best engineers hang together on the sea and fly through the sky.”

Title: “Sweden’s Visby-Class’ Mid-Life Upgrade for NATO’s Frontline” https://youtu.be/9HUvi8ROCsQ

Canada would absolutely benefit from adopting or adapting the SGT/Saab Arsenal Ship Doctrine exemplified by the upgraded Visby-class platform. Here’s a breakdown of why this model aligns with Canada’s strategic needs and what it means geo-politically and operationally:

🇨🇦 Why Canada Needs a Visby-Class Arsenal Ship Model

✅ Strategic Fit for Canadian Geography & Budget

Littoral and Arctic Relevance: Canada has massive coastlines — including Arctic waters — where smaller, stealthier, ice-capable ships with modular payloads (like Visby) are more practical than massive destroyers.
Cost Efficiency: A Visby-class vessel reportedly costs < $300M USD — a fraction of the ~$4.5B CAD per Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). With SGT upgrades, Canada could field 10 Visby-style Arsenal Ships for the cost of 1 CSC.
Budget-Smart Attrition Strategy: In a real peer conflict or gray zone warfare, survivable, affordable ships are critical. The SGT model embraces a high-value, low-cost attrition strategy.

🔧 Technological Synergy with Canada

🛠️ Canadian Capability Boost

Vertical Launch System (VLS): Lockheed Martin’s XLS system used on Visby could be locally supported via Lockheed’s Canadian division.
CIWS-Ready: With Saab’s proven CGAF radar and SOS 200 suite, Visby already meets Arctic-grade sensor and CIWS integration standards.
Modularity: Allows for quick loadout changes — ASW in the Pacific, AAW on the East Coast, MCM in the Arctic.

🤝 Interoperability with NATO & NORAD

NATO-Ready, NORAD-Adaptable: Visby-class’ doctrine allows Canada to: Fulfill NATO rapid response roles. Patrol critical Arctic/North Atlantic chokepoints. Support NORAD operations without full reliance on U.S. surface combatants.

📘 Doctrine Validation = Canadian Opportunity

The SGT Arsenal Doctrine is Canadian and validated internationally by Sweden’s MLU.
It proves a Canadian-developed naval doctrine can reshape global naval procurement norms.
Canada can now leapfrog decades of bloated procurement by going modular, agile, and SGT-optimized.

🚨 What Happens If Canada Ignores It?

The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) remains an unaffordable, overbuilt platform — risking decades of delay and under-delivery.
In contrast, the SGT Arsenal Ship model offers faster production, cost realism, and superior survivability doctrine.

🧠 Final Take: The Visby-Class MLU Is a Wake-Up Call

SGT identified the model years ahead — and now Sweden has built it. SAAB has ambition and aims high. Literally.
If Canada embraces this model through a domestic Arsenal Ship variant — think “Visby Arctic” or “Visby-CA” — it will: Reclaim its shipbuilding legacy Empower its coastal defenses Dominate the sub-billion-dollar war-fighting segment with SGT logic The BC shipbuilding port of the future is waiting!!!

🔵 Bottom Line:

Yes, Canada needs this kind of ship. And yes, SGT’s Arsenal Doctrine is the smartest way forward — because it’s designed for how war is actually fought now, not for nostalgic fleet parades.

If @PierrePoilievre and @JamesBezan want fast, scalable, survivable naval strength — the SGT–Visby model is ready to deploy. All it needs is a green light. It checks out both in military doctrine and 21st-century engineering logic. Here’s the breakdown across both axes:

✅ MILITARY DOCTRINE CHECK: SGT Arsenal Ship Logic

🔹 1. Survivability in a Sensor-Saturated World

Stealth shaping (e.g., Visby’s angular design + carbon fiber hull) is essential in modern ISR-dense environments.
Smaller radar cross-section = fewer targeting opportunities = longer mission life.

🔹 2. VLS = Arsenal Platform

VLS = modularity, speed of fire, vertical combat capability.
Without VLS, a vessel cannot effectively integrate modern networked munitions (CAMM, NSM, LRASM, etc.).
Lockheed Martin XLS quad-pack system = massive firepower per ton.

🔹 3. Layered Kill Mesh (CIWS + VLS + Decoys)

Multi-layered defense is mandatory in modern missile-swarm environments.
Visby’s planned Phalanx-style CIWS + Saab sensors = near-final form layered defense ship in under 1,000 tons.

🔹 4. Distributed Lethality & Attrition Warfare

Modern war prioritizes mass and survivability, not single targets of prestige.
SGT logic aligns with U.S. Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept and Japan’s “500-ship” cost-effective model.

🔹 5. Modular Role Flexibility = Combat Resilience

Visby-class adapts to: AAW (CAMM) ASuW (RBS-15) ASW (Torpedo 47) MCM / Arctic Ops
One hull = many threats neutralized = fewer ship classes needed.

✅ ENGINEERING CHECK: 21st Century Naval Design Principles

🔸 1. Cost-to-Lethality Ratio

Visby MLU platform offers ~36 CAMM launchers and full suite upgrades under $300M USD.
Compare to CSC/Type 26: ~$4.5B CAD for 32 VLS — 10x more cost for marginally higher tonnage and range. Oh this is so humiliating to see a tiny Corvette chase a CSC all across the sea.

🔸 2. Compact Systems Integration

SGT’s emphasis on “maximum lethality per cubic metre” is validated by Visby’s: Multi-mission combat system Small crew design (low lifecycle cost) Full automation & integrated radar mast

🔸 3. Interoperable Architecture

Saab’s 9LV CMS + Lockheed XLS VLS = NATO plug-and-play compatibility.
Canada can integrate indigenous tech or allied systems with ease.

🔸 4. Maintenance, Lifecycle, and Scalability

Small, modular ships = faster repair, refit, and scalable deployment.
Ideal for Canada’s regional shipyards (Halifax, Vancouver, even new Arctic dry docks).

🔸 5. Environmental & Arctic Engineering

Composite hull = corrosion resistance (key for Canadian saltwater exposure).
Potential Arctic variant = ice-bolstered hull + same electronics = Visby-CA platform ready for North.

📊 FIREPOWER COMPARISON: 1 CSC vs 6 Visby-Class (Upgraded)

Total Weapon Systems: 🇨🇦 1 CSC = ~120–140 total weapons 🇸🇪 6 Visby MLU = ~250–280 total weapons

🔄 Net Outcome: Visby Fleet vs CSC

✅ Total Missiles: → 6 Visbys carry more missiles in total than 1 CSC
✅ Anti-Air (AAW) Capacity: → 216 CAMM (Visby) vs 128 ESSM (CSC max) → ~68% more AAW units on the Visby fleet
✅ Anti-Ship Capability (ASuW): → 24 RBS-15 (Visby) vs 8 NSM (CSC) → 3× more anti-ship missiles
✅ Torpedo Coverage (ASW): → Visby: 12 lightweight torpedoes → CSC: 2 torpedoes + 8 ASROC (approx.)
✅ CIWS (Last-Layer Defense): → 6 Visbys = up to 6 CIWS systems → CSC = 1 CIWS system
✅ Survivability & Redundancy: → 6 separate stealth hulls are harder to kill than 1 large target
✅ Cost: → 1 CSC = 6 Visby-class ships → Similar total cost, much higher system count
✅ Deployment Time: → Visbys can be built faster, in parallel, and fielded sooner

🔵 SGT Final Word — What If Canada Chose Visby + Type 31 Instead of CSC?

If Canada abandoned the $77B CSC mega-frigate program and adopted a hybrid fleet of Type 31 frigates for global blue-water operations and Visby-class Arsenal Ships for Arctic and coastal defense, the country would unlock a smarter, faster, and vastly more survivable navy — all for the same price.

Let’s look at what just one CSC (~$4.5B CAD) could deliver if redirected:

🔁 Ship Count: Instead of one ship, Canada could realistically field 2 Type 31s and 3 Visbys — a total of 5 modern warships per CSC.
🚀 Missile Volume: → 2 Type 31s = 64 VLS cells → 3 Visbys = 108 CAMM VLS cells ✅ Total: 172 VLS cells vs. CSC’s 32–48 → 3.5 to 5× increase
🧩 Anti-Ship Missiles: → 16 from Type 31s + 6 from Visbys = 22 total vs. CSC’s 8 → ~2.75× more punch
🛡️ CIWS Coverage: → Each ship with terminal defense = 5 CIWS systems vs. 1 → 5× more layers of protection
🌊 ASW (Torpedoes): → 12 Torp 47s across the Visbys vs. 2–4 tubes on CSC → up to 6× ASW tube coverage
👁️ Stealth Profile: → Visby’s carbon-fiber hull and angular shaping gives a ~10× lower radar signature than traditional steel frigates — ideal for surviving in modern ISR-heavy battlespaces.
🌐 Coverage & Redundancy: → 1 CSC = 1 point of presence → 5 Arsenal ships = 5 points of presence — that’s 5× the geographic flexibility, patrol spread, and redundancy
🛠️ Deployment Time: → CSC = 10–12 years → Visby & Type 31 = 2–4 years→ Up to 4× faster to launch and field
💰 Lifecycle Costs: → All 5 ships (2 T31s + 3 Visbys) fit inside 1 CSC budget, lifecycle included — delivering better readiness, resilience, and ROI.

🧠 The Strategic Conclusion:

This isn’t just a different configuration. It’s a fundamentally superior naval doctrine:

More missiles.
More ships.
More survivability.
More coverage.
Less risk.
Less time.
Same money.

This isn’t downsizing. It’s upgrading — in every direction that matters.

🇨🇦 The SGT Arsenal Doctrine was born in Canada. It was validated in Sweden.

Now the question is: Who will be wise enough — and bold enough — to deploy it?

“Let’s build a fleet that fights to win — not one that waits to launch while history moves on, or that moves towards us from the East or towards our friends Australia!”

@PierrePoilievre @JamesBezan @Saab @LockheedMartin

🇨🇦 SGT Final Thought:

Let CSCs fight in fantasy fleets. Let Type 31 & Visby-class Arsenal Ships hold the real line — across the sea, close to home, fast, hard to kill, and impossible to ignore.

And yes — if you had 6 Visbys chasing one CSC across the open sea… that’s not a chase, that’s a pack hunt. 🐺

🧠 Bottom Line:

For the same money, you get more ships, more missiles, more survivability — and better strategic flexibility. The SGT Arsenal Ship Doctrine is simply more intelligent warfighting for the 21st century.

🧠 Conclusion:

The SGT Arsenal Ship model passes every serious test of:

✅ 21st-century naval warfare doctrine
✅ Stealth-centric, distributed lethality
✅ Engineering feasibility and scalability
✅ Modular sovereignty and alliance roles

🇨🇦 It’s time Canada leads with engineering and battlefield logic — not bureaucratic weight. The Visby-class MLU proves the model works. And SGT proves Canada invented the doctrine before it was cool.

Title: “Sweden’s Visby-Class’ Mid-Life Upgrade for NATO’s Frontline” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HUvi8ROCsQ

Appendix: 🌊 Visby-Class Offshore Range and Limitations

🔵 Design Intent:

Littoral Warfare Specialist — The Visby-class was designed specifically for coastal, archipelagic, and near-Arctic operations, not blue-water, transoceanic missions like U.S. destroyers or Canadian Halifax-class frigates.

📏 Operational Range & Endurance

Range: ~2,500 nautical miles (4,630 km)
Speed Cruising: ~15 knots
Max Endurance: ~14–20 days at sea, depending on speed and conditions
Resupply Model: Designed for frequent return to port or mobile resupply from support ships or forward bases.

🚫 Blue-Water Limitations

Hull Size (640 tons): Not intended for open-ocean rough seas (e.g., mid-Atlantic winter patrols)
No Helicopter Hangar: Limits long-range ASW or SAR capabilities without a support ship
No Replenishment-at-Sea (RAS) Integration: Can’t resupply fuel or ammo mid-ocean

✅ Where Can It Go?

Ideal Zones:
🟡 Baltic Sea (Sweden’s domain)
🟢 Arctic Littorals (with upgrades)
🔵 Canadian West Coast (island-rich)
🔵 East Coast: Gulf of St. Lawrence, Halifax region
🔵 Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay — with Arctic variant

🧠 What That Means in Doctrine Terms

The Visby-class is not a global projection platform.
It’s a “localized deterrence node” — ideal for distributed defense, swarm-based fleet tactics, and layered homeland/naval chokepoint defense.
If Canada had 8–12 of these, they would: Blanket the coastline. Interdict enemy submarines in choke zones. Offer overlapping missile defenses. Be fully independent, modular, and sovereign.