- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Same size as the Formidable, but less capable. I don't see the need to give up the capabilities.Kirkhill said:
Little Honking Ships......
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
OK but the cost isn't the only issue, in my mind. I'm thinking what if we had say 8 of the Ivar Class which are really destroyers, so 4 per coast, then 6-7 of these kick butt deployable Corvettes per coast. I'm thinking cost of $500 million per, so $6-7 billion, plus $8 billion for the Ivars, so $14-15 billion, all in. Those Corvettes could each have 4 X 8 cell mk 41 vls and i'm pretty sure they could be built to carry the Cyclone, which the Holland can. It's a pocket frigate which can handle all kinds of duties, including littoral. Then we have $5-6 billion to finish the fleet, AOR's, AOP's, etc, which would put us all in for around $20 billion and I'm a happy taxpayer.Kirkhill said:C'est vrai. Mais c'est laquelle qui coute le moins cher?
I am aware this is not going to happen.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Sir Humphrey at Thin Pinstriped Line:
The Royal Navy and Light Frigates - A solution in need of a problem?
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-royal-navy-and-light-frigates.html
He's agin 'em because might lead to pressure for reduction in escort fleet of 19 large ships. On the other hand the RCN's problem is: can Canada afford 15 CSCs (cf. 19 RN ships generally similar types) or should there be a high/medium/(low?) mix?
Mark
Ottawa
The Royal Navy and Light Frigates - A solution in need of a problem?
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-royal-navy-and-light-frigates.html
He's agin 'em because might lead to pressure for reduction in escort fleet of 19 large ships. On the other hand the RCN's problem is: can Canada afford 15 CSCs (cf. 19 RN ships generally similar types) or should there be a high/medium/(low?) mix?
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 8,329
- Points
- 1,160
By the way Alex - if you are doing your cost analysis you could/should add in this:
3x Iroquois = 3x 280 = 840 Berths
12x Halifax = 12x 225 = 2700 Berths
Total Berths = 3740
8x Iver Huitfeldt = 8x 101 = 606 Berths
12x Formidable = 12x 90 = 1080 Berths
Total Berths = 1888
Reduction in paychecks and pensions of 50% (49.52 for the pedants)
As you suggest Mark, the RN's and the RCN's needs may not be identical.
3x Iroquois = 3x 280 = 840 Berths
12x Halifax = 12x 225 = 2700 Berths
Total Berths = 3740
8x Iver Huitfeldt = 8x 101 = 606 Berths
12x Formidable = 12x 90 = 1080 Berths
Total Berths = 1888
Reduction in paychecks and pensions of 50% (49.52 for the pedants)
As you suggest Mark, the RN's and the RCN's needs may not be identical.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 1,160
AlexanderM said:
Well well could then provide Littoral coverage to a NATO fleet when the gold plated LCS breaks down within 10' of the dock they just left. ;D
It would be cheaper for the USN to pay for us to build and man them, then their LCS program!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Yes indeed! We would make the LCS program look bad, not that they need any help. lolColin P said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Yes, the crew requirements are sO much easier on the budget! Those Corvettes would rock. Of course, NATO would classifiy them as frigates, based on capability, but we would ask them to hold off, until after they are built.Kirkhill said:
- Reaction score
- 1,710
- Points
- 1,060
Alex, I like this idea quite a lot. It seems much more realistic than the current plan. Some how the government is going to have to cost the shipbuilding program better. $26 billion is not going to go far given the previous costing announcements
- Reaction score
- 6,303
- Points
- 1,040
Kirkhill said:
Those are the max berths on ships, but not personnel required for going to sea. One thing they do on newer ships is have larger support organizations ashore doing some the command staff type taskings ashore vice on the ships, and the crew size is pretty close to the minimum required to go to sea. Only the deployers are ever fully manned, and normally at least a few ships are in some form of 3rd line work, so the crew is down to dozens. You can put the ships to sea with a lot less then the max, but you won't be able to do numerous things at once (fight fires while fighting off pirates while staging a cocktail party).
What it does do is significantly decrease the hotel services etc needed on board, so you also spend way less on outfitting the ship over it's life. There is a personnel saving as well, but it's not 50%. It does mean though that you don't have the Cmdre roll on board with 60 of his closest minions, sub minions and hanger ons, at least 50 of which are completely useless without the ability to communicate ashore. I think a lot of the scandinavian countries have gone to this, so they have a remote battle watch stood up somewhere ashore they are in comms with when deployed, and that is scaled up or down based on what they are doing (vice having them on board).
They also significantly reduced the maintainers onboard, so they have larger FLSs meet the ships when they show up in port, so it's more like how the MCDVs are crewed.
Pros and cons to either way of doing business, but it's probably traditions that have kept it going this long. That's why we still have dozens of people handling lines instead of about six.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Best RPC EVER!!!
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
But are little ships really what is needed? The environment continues to evolve, and the builders of the San Antonio class LPD is not only offering a "stripped down" version (Flight II) which is about 30% cheaper, but also offering the hull as the basis for a missile cruiser carrying a large AESA array and a huge missile battery.
While very expensive, something like this is needed to operate in an environment where the opposition has AA/AD weapons to prevent our or allied forces from operating. The large battery also ensures multiple engagement capability and persistent coverage, or alternatively the ability to follow up with attack weapons like Harpoon and Tomahawk.
While it would be very useful to have such ships in our fleet, as a practical matter I don't see that happening in Canada. What this illustrates is the environment and therefore the types of ships needed is changing, and having these programs drag on for decades ensures we will spend a great deal of money and have the wrong ship (airplane, rucksack) for the job.
While very expensive, something like this is needed to operate in an environment where the opposition has AA/AD weapons to prevent our or allied forces from operating. The large battery also ensures multiple engagement capability and persistent coverage, or alternatively the ability to follow up with attack weapons like Harpoon and Tomahawk.
While it would be very useful to have such ships in our fleet, as a practical matter I don't see that happening in Canada. What this illustrates is the environment and therefore the types of ships needed is changing, and having these programs drag on for decades ensures we will spend a great deal of money and have the wrong ship (airplane, rucksack) for the job.
- Reaction score
- 4,204
- Points
- 1,120
The real issue on all of this boils down to....it's not going to happen.
Pipe dreams for all, but unless my world turns on it's head, there will be no little honking ships, there will be an A/OPS, there will, someday, be a new AOR, and perhaps, within my lifetime, there will be a new class of surface warships....to replace the Halifax class.
The will to buy offshore, let alone buy at all is not there.
NS
Pipe dreams for all, but unless my world turns on it's head, there will be no little honking ships, there will be an A/OPS, there will, someday, be a new AOR, and perhaps, within my lifetime, there will be a new class of surface warships....to replace the Halifax class.
The will to buy offshore, let alone buy at all is not there.
NS
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Pretty much agree, unless there's a change in government, in which case all bets are off.
- Reaction score
- 6,007
- Points
- 1,260
A change in government will not do much. All parties will promise to build ships, warships, in Canada ... it's the "jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!" thing.
Once in power whichever party wins the next election will delay and trim its sails and so on and so forth in order to spend as little as possible ... in order to appease either its anti-spending or anti-military constituencies (and the Liberals have both).
Once in power whichever party wins the next election will delay and trim its sails and so on and so forth in order to spend as little as possible ... in order to appease either its anti-spending or anti-military constituencies (and the Liberals have both).
And you think a change in government will buy you anything at all. Suggest you take a good look at E.R.'s spending graphs. Trudeau has already promised to follow in his father's white feather approach to national defense, and the NDP want about two squads of social workers wearing blue berets and carrying first aid kits. All the stink in parliament over the F35 and other purchases wasn't introduced by the PCs but when the manure hit the agitator they had to throw the brakes on and investigate or the press would never have stopped. Ukraine may be the best thing happening to stir up new purchases.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,854
- Points
- 1,210
YZT580 said:
While it is disappeared from the spot light as well, Ukraine did raise fears of a Russian incursion in the Arctic (they are building new air and naval bases on their arctic coast). Such a threat is in our strategic interest, and maybe a little of drumming up that is would make the Canadian public think cutting defense would be a bad idea
- Reaction score
- 2,871
- Points
- 940
While I assume you're correct, I've heard no such promise -- that would mean that he actually has some sort of policy vision.YZT580 said:
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 1,160
10 years ago the NDP would have supported the ship building program because of it's ties to the Unions, now they are to busy sucking up to the Latte sippers they don't care to much about the blue collar side.
