New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

I'll walk back my initial statement, this will work. And it will likely work well for the short term. But there is probably a reason no one else in the world has ever used this sort of design before.

So there are some design constraints/restraints two of which we can talk about here.

First is blind area for the radar below the hockey stick. The further away you can move that mast the smaller the blind area. So that's why the C shape. To push that blind spot to be smaller. There is always a blind spot on single source radars, and this is a AOR so a small arc covered by other sensors is not a huge issue. That's a restraint so you minimize the blind spot.

The second is ensuring what goes on the top of the hockey stick doesn't get blinded by the radar emmissions. So if its above the radar itself then it will never be blinded. The radar is a Saab SG AMB which has a look up angle, so being directly above it will ensure no stray signals get there. That's a constraint so you never blind your own sensor.

So this is very much an "up" approach to borrow your term @KevinB . There is an out on that mast as well as some sensors/tx get pushed the corners of the house or the yardarms (the navigation radars as an example will be on the corners of the bridgetop, being combined together to create a full 360 degree nav picture).

My concern is that the hockey stick is going to likely need guide wires to stop vibration and flex. You can get some fairly permissable cabling that doesn't interfere much with radar emmissions (kevlar as an example), but it remains to be seen how effective that will be. Second is that I expect even with those the stuctural life of that stick will be short. The other concern is that there are other solutions available that would have worked better IMHO but were either a) more expensive or b) not within Nav Arch understanding (they don't have combat systems folks working at VSL).

Don't worry, you can always weld it (again)

POV: NDT technician on a ferry | By NDT South Africa - Facebook

POV: NDT technician on a ferry

fb.watch

 

[OldSolduer]

Yep, watched two ADATS thunder in because the operators were used to seeing warning about no laser on their screen.
Training scar.
10 years apart.

Train how you will fight or you'll fight like you trained. (Listening silence now)

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1688958277302857751

The start of CCG AOPS no 1

makes me a little squirelly thinking about the start of CSC no 1 and all that

 

[Underway]

Makes me excited that CSC is just around the corner.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Government of Canada announces investment in shipbuilding infrastructure for the Canadian Surface Combatant

Through the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada is revitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) surface fleet of ships to ensure that members have the equipment needed to do their jobs and protect Canadians.

finance.yahoo.com

Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, has amended its definition contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) for an additional $463 million for the CSC project (including taxes). This investment will enhance the efficiency of ship construction while improving project costs and delivering best value for Canadians.

The enhancements at ISI will expand and modify their site and facilities at the Halifax Shipyard and supporting facilities at Woodside Industries and Marine Fabricators in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Is this the funding for the large expansion of the Halifax Shipyard in order to make the yard suitable for building the CSC's?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Government of Canada announces investment in shipbuilding infrastructure for the Canadian Surface Combatant

Through the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada is revitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) surface fleet of ships to ensure that members have the equipment needed to do their jobs and protect Canadians.

finance.yahoo.com

Is this the funding for the large expansion of the Halifax Shipyard in order to make the yard suitable for building the CSC's?

Yes, basically they bid on building a much smaller ship, so the improvements they big as no cost to the GoC (that the province paid for with a forgivable loan) needed additional upgrades to build CSC efficiently.

Buying a MOTs ship then customizing seems like more work than simply doing the design from scratch, or just not customizing it, but CSC is substantially larger than what was in the NSS bid package.

There is a really good article by Mr. Ian Mack on what "Target State" means, but that included an approximate description of the size of the CSC in 2011, which is not the CSC of 2023.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1688958277302857751

The start of CCG AOPS no 1

makes me a little squirelly thinking about the start of CSC no 1 and all that

I am betting the CCG is still trying to figure what they do with it, perhaps use it as interim vessels till the purpose designed vessels come into service and then sell them.

 

[Spencer100]

I am betting the CCG is still trying to figure what they do with it, perhaps use it as interim vessels till the purpose designed vessels come into service and then sell them.

By "Interim" you mean 25 years right?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

By "Interim" you mean 25 years right?

I am guessing 10 yearish as the design work is underway for the 1100 replacements. Likely the CCG AOPs will be doing science and light buoy tending/ice breaking. I suspect that at max they could carry 2-3 9 ton buoys, 3 ton anchors and associated mooring gear. Means you be spending all your time transiting back to base to exchange them. A 1100 class can carry about 8 (most in the hold) and the limiting factor for them is more deck space as you need most of the well deck to haul and release the buoys and gear.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As you can see the new designs have room like the 1100's for a hold (where the crane is located) with a inbetween decks and will be bigger than the 1100's as well with a displacement of 8200 DWT, compared to the 4737 DWT of the 1100's. One niche the CCG AOP's might fill is placing small buoys in smaller water ways as they be handier in that situation. Although a small dedicated buoy tender would likley be more efficient in that respect.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I am guessing 10 yearish as the design work is underway for the 1100 replacements. Likely the CCG AOPs will be doing science and light buoy tending/ice breaking. I suspect that at max they could carry 2-3 9 ton buoys, 3 ton anchors and associated mooring gear. Means you be spending all your time transiting back to base to exchange them. A 1100 class can carry about 8 (most in the hold) and the limiting factor for them is more deck space as you need most of the well deck to haul and release the buoys and gear.

The two CCG AOPS are being procured as replacements for two of the CCG's Offshore patrol vessel fleet, they aren't very well suited to buoy tending work. They are being equipped to do various other typical CCG roles such as S&R, navigation upkeep, light icebreaking, scientific research, etc but their main purpose will be acting as patrol vessels.

Construction officially begins on the first Canadian Coast Guard Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship - Canada.ca

Renewing the Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet ensures our personnel can continue carrying out critical work with modern and safe equipment, while creating good skilled jobs in our shipbuilding and marine industries across the country.

www.canada.ca

The Canadian Coast Guard’s new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships will operate as a primary platform to support fisheries enforcement missions on Canada’s east coast, including Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization patrols. They will also support search and rescue and icebreaking operations on the east coast, strengthening Canada’s presence in the low Arctic.

In addition to their primary missions, the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships will be able to support environmental response and aids to navigation, allowing greater flexibility and adaptability for the Canadian Coast Guard’s operations. Outfitted with science equipment and a medical facility onboard, these modern and versatile ships will be able to conduct scientific research and support humanitarian assistance missions.

The Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships will replace two of the Canadian Coast Guard’s existing five Offshore Patrol Vessels. The vessels are 103 metres long, 19 metres beam, with approximately 6,677 metric tons displacement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The two CCG AOPS are being procured as replacements for two of the CCG's Offshore patrol vessel fleet, they aren't very well suited to buoy tending work. They are being equipped to do various other typical CCG roles such as S&R, navigation upkeep, light icebreaking, scientific research, etc but their main purpose will be acting as patrol vessels.

Construction officially begins on the first Canadian Coast Guard Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship - Canada.ca

Renewing the Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet ensures our personnel can continue carrying out critical work with modern and safe equipment, while creating good skilled jobs in our shipbuilding and marine industries across the country.

www.canada.ca

I don't know what the East Coast CCG is like, but out here they don't like single purpose vessels to much.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I don't know what the East Coast CCG is like, but out here they don't like single purpose vessels to much.

Their AOPS definitely aren't single purpose vessels, just like how the RCN variants similarly aren't. They clearly have a few main roles outlined alongside a multitude of more secondary missions set out for them, they just are not overly suited to buoy tending work. Even if the CCG wasn't tripping over themselves for AOPS, I don't think they are burdensome ships nor do I think they will get rid of them anytime soon. Beggars can't be choosers as a Canadian government organization.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Their AOPS definitely aren't single purpose vessels, just like how the RCN variants similarly aren't. They clearly have a few main roles outlined alongside a multitude of more secondary missions set out for them, they just are not overly suited to buoy tending work. Even if the CCG wasn't tripping over themselves for AOPS, I don't think they are burdensome ships nor do I think they will get rid of them anytime soon. Beggars can't be choosers as a Canadian government organization.

For the moment yes you are correct. once the new ships start to come on line, they may look at their abilty to man ships (they have recruitment issues as well) and decide to let go of them, just like they did with the John Jacobson.

 

[suffolkowner]

Government of Canada announces investment in shipbuilding infrastructure for the Canadian Surface Combatant

Through the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada is revitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) surface fleet of ships to ensure that members have the equipment needed to do their jobs and protect Canadians.

finance.yahoo.com

Is this the funding for the large expansion of the Halifax Shipyard in order to make the yard suitable for building the CSC's?

seems like a lot of money must be more than the big shed that was the original idea, will it need cranes etc or is it just to work under cover?

 

[Rainbow1910]

seems like a lot of money must be more than the big shed that was the original idea, will it need cranes etc or is it just to work under cover?

Irving Shipbuilding (ISI) is proposing to expand and modify site and facilities at the Halifax Shipyard. The Halifax Shipyard site expansion will include dredging, marine structures and rock infill behind the structure creating approximately 13 acres of additional yard space. The newly expanded area will not extend farther into the channel than the limits of the floating dry dock that was previously located at Halifax Shipyard.

It seems like they are looking at a major infill project to make more space outside, they are going to need some kind of launching device and likely another syncrolift as I have heard CSC is too heavy/large for the one currently in Halifax. Unsure if they will be making additional construction sheds or will be just using more exterior space. Whatever it is, it is some serious expansion work.

 

[Underway]

This makes sense. The synchrolift is for sure to small to accomodate the CSC. Still super useful kit though, almost everything else can fit onto it (subs, MCDV's, CPF's). AOPS might be approaching the max wieght limit on it but it will fit if a frigate does.

I had no idea how they were going to fit that huge ship on the platform outside. So building for more space makes sense.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This makes sense. The synchrolift is for sure to small to accomodate the CSC. Still super useful kit though, almost everything else can fit onto it (subs, MCDV's, CPF's). AOPS might be approaching the max wieght limit on it but it will fit if a frigate does.

I had no idea how they were going to fit that huge ship on the platform outside. So building for more space makes sense.

Well they got the luxury of seeing how it's done elsewhere.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

for the love of god, no more synchrolifts.

 

[suffolkowner]

In focus: delivering the Type 26 Frigates | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

this article which I've linked to before talks about the UK progress and some of the problems they've had and what they are doing re the assembly hall