Top 50 Issues with the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC): Addressing Post-RMA Naval Warfare Challenge

Follow @SkillsGapTrain

1. Insufficient VLS Cells: The CSC’s 32-cell VLS cannot accommodate the increased missile demands from adversaries deploying loyal wingmen drones.
2. Missile Capacity Mismatch: The lack of multiple VLS banks limits firepower needed for swarm and saturation attacks.
3. Outdated CIWS Systems: SeaRAM systems are insufficient for high-speed and high-volume threats like hypersonic missiles.
4. Missile Interception Gaps: The CSC lacks effective systems to neutralize hypersonic missiles.
5. Limited Multi-Layered Defensive Rings: Inability to deploy outer, middle, and inner defensive layers reduces survivability.
6. Lack of Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs): No infrastructure to support DEWs, critical for defending against modern missile threats.
7. Restricted Vertical Launch Integration: Limited ability to add or upgrade VLS systems for future needs.
8. Inferior Drone Countermeasures: Lacks robust countermeasures for saturation drone swarm attacks.
9. No Long-Range Hypersonic Strike Capability: Cannot launch hypersonic missiles to engage distant targets.
10. Limited Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC): Hinders integration with NATO fleets for missile defense.

1. Limited Autonomous Integration: No capacity to manage autonomous corvettes, autonomous surface drones, autonomous sub-surface drones, mini submarines submarines or full size autonomous submarines.
2. No Capability for Loyal Wingmen Drones: Cannot support AI-driven loyal wingmen for air combat.
3. Suboptimal Drone Deployment Systems: Inadequate facilities for launching and managing autonomous systems.
4. Reduced Multi-Domain Integration: Weak integration across air, surface, and underwater operations.
5. Slower Reaction Time: Combat systems are not optimized for real-time responses against AI-driven threats.
6. Inadequate Swarm Defense: Limited capabilities to counter adversarial AI swarms effectively.
7. Restricted Vertical Integration: Insufficient tonnage for integrating future AI-driven systems.
8. Vulnerability to AI-Driven Threats: Lacks predictive systems to counter emerging autonomous weapon threats.
9. Insufficient Network-Centric Warfare Readiness: Subpar real-time data-sharing across fleets.
10. No Autonomous Replenishment Capability: Cannot coordinate with unmanned logistics vessels.

1. Lower Stealth and Survivability: Limited emphasis on stealth makes the CSC vulnerable in contested zones.
2. Inadequate Tonnage for Modularity: ~40% smaller than DDG(X), restricting the addition of future systems.
3. Poor Survivability in Contested Zones: Lacks resilience to electromagnetic and physical threats.
4. Outdated Heat Signature Management: High thermal signature increases vulnerability to infrared-guided weapons.
5. Insufficient EMP Resilience: Not hardened against electromagnetic warfare threats. (Limited data here.)
6. Weaker Damage Control Systems: No AI-driven damage control, limiting survivability in combat.
7. Reduced Crew Survivability: Lacks advanced NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection.
8. No Redundancy in Defensive Systems: Single systems for defense reduce operational reliability.
9. Limited Adaptability for Emerging Tech: Difficult to retrofit for railguns, DEWs, or hypersonic weapons.
10. Restricted Payload Capacity: Smaller size limits weapon and supply carriage.

1. Insufficient Arctic Capabilities: No reinforced hulls or cold-weather adaptations for Arctic operations.
2. Inadequate Arctic Resource Projection: Cannot project force or defend resource-rich Arctic zones.
3. Shorter Operational Range: Needs frequent refuelling, unsuitable for vast Arctic or Pacific operations.
4. Limited Ice-Class Adaptations: Unable to operate effectively in icy waters.
5. Unprepared for Pacific Deterrence: Insufficient firepower and survivability to counter Chinese naval expansion.

1. No Integration of Railguns: Lacks readiness for railgun systems critical for long-range precision strikes.
2. Inefficient Power Generation: CODLAG system cannot support energy-intensive systems like DEWs.
3. Outdated Radar Systems: Inadequate for tracking low-observable hypersonic and stealth threats.
4. No Flexible Weapon Bays: Fixed configurations limit modular payload adaptability.
5. Slower Deployment of Future Tech: Lags in adopting revolutionary systems like quantum communication arrays.

1. Higher Per-Unit Cost: At $4-5 billion CAD per ship, it is costlier than modular alternatives like DDG(X).
2. Costly Tech Upgrades: Retrofitting for new technologies requires expensive redesigns.
3. Subpar Economic Viability: Less cost-effective compared to platforms with better scalability.
4. Legacy Doctrine Design: Reflects outdated naval doctrines unsuitable for modern warfare.
5. Limited Industrial Synergy: Does not leverage opportunities for co-development or tech-sharing with allies.

1. Missile Detection Deficiencies: Sensors inadequate for detecting hypersonic or multi-axis threats.
2. Weak Cybersecurity Infrastructure: Vulnerable to advanced cyberattacks by adversaries.
3. Inadequate Cross-Domain Command Capability: Cannot serve as a joint-command hub for integrated operations.
4. Single Role Mission Constraints: Sacrifices specialization for a multi-role design, limiting effectiveness in high-intensity scenarios.
5. Unprepared for Peer Adversary Tactics: Cannot match adversaries’ advanced strategies, including saturation attacks effectively.