New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Boy, Kirkhill, you really like to talk to yourself, don't you.

Just kidding!

I want to see those MCDV replacements. i want to see them fast, and I want them to be very much non-USA dependent.

Here's my dream:

Made in Canada Corve te (or light frigate - your choice of denomination) 2,000 to 2,400 tons displacement, 120 meters approx. length with: 32 CAMM-MR, 76 mm Leonardo main gun, 2x 35 mm remote controlled gun, SMART-S Mk 2, CANTASS, 2x French SLAT anti-torpedo system, CANTASS, hangar for one Merlin ASW helicopter, CCS330. Size of purchase: 12 but not, repeat not, at the expense of any of the RCD's.

However, bought as an emergency program, with the Halifax's being brought home from oversea deployment as training ships to get these ready for front line employment.

You're not wrong! My wife has given me lots of practice.

 

[Kirkhill]

Boy, Kirkhill, you really like to talk to yourself, don't you.

Just kidding!

I want to see those MCDV replacements. i want to see them fast, and I want them to be very much non-USA dependent.

Here's my dream:

Made in Canada Corve te (or light frigate - your choice of denomination) 2,000 to 2,400 tons displacement, 120 meters approx. length with: 32 CAMM-MR, 76 mm Leonardo main gun, 2x 35 mm remote controlled gun, SMART-S Mk 2, CANTASS, 2x French SLAT anti-torpedo system, CANTASS, hangar for one Merlin ASW helicopter, CCS330. Size of purchase: 12 but not, repeat not, at the expense of any of the RCD's.

However, bought as an emergency program, with the Halifax's being brought home from oversea deployment as training ships to get these ready for front line employment.

Sounds a lot like a St-Laurent.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes. Exactly. A St-Laurent with AAW for self protection. But with minimal US technology, so it is more European tech that we can get the Intellectual property rights for.

As an ASW escort, it would still work fine.

 

[deepblue202]

Yes. Exactly. A St-Laurent with AAW for self protection. But with minimal US technology, so it is more European tech that we can get the Intellectual property rights for.

As an ASW escort, it would still work fine.

Or South Korean as I think they have the capacity to produce product the fastest and while we do that order new tanks and IFV to.

 

[Nvlgzr]

To be fair, you could have said much the same about Seaspan when they got their award. They bought their expertise from the Koreans (Daewoo I believe) and from Vard's precursors (STX, Aker, Kvaerner).

True. At least Seaspan had some experience building the Orcas and some large yachts. By bringing in the Koreans they probably shaved many years off the development curve. I expect that is why Davies owners bought Aker Finland and have hired Pearlson & Pearlson.

Thank you for the article: https://www.axios.com/2024/12/24/de...ng-trump-us-control-comments?ref=upstract.com
The link to the article of Thule and Camp Century was very much of interest.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Boy, Kirkhill, you really like to talk to yourself, don't you.

Just kidding!

I want to see those MCDV replacements. i want to see them fast, and I want them to be very much non-USA dependent.

Here's my dream:

Made in Canada Corvete (or light frigate - your choice of denomination) 2,000 to 2,400 tons displacement, 120 meters approx. length with: 32 CAMM-MR, 76 mm Leonardo main gun, 2x 35 mm remote controlled gun, SMART-S Mk 2, CANTASS, 2x French SLAT anti-torpedo system, CANTASS, hangar for one Merlin ASW helicopter, CCS330. Size of purchase: 12 but not, repeat not, at the expense of any of the RCD's.

However, bought as an emergency program, with the Halifax's being brought home from oversea deployment as training ships to get these ready for front line employment.

Totally agree, we cannot be restrained by USA ITAR. Did you want to throw in a couple of Naval Strike Missiles?
Merlin makes sense as then we have some commonality.

 

[FJAG]

Which brings us to @FJAG 's plaintive cry: What about surge? (Apologies FJAG - I know you have other words to wail but that is my take on your mobilization arguments).

You're not wrong. Note the below chart shows Canada's mobilization stages. View 1 is major conflict, View 2 is lesser operations which might involve minor conflict and OOTW.

If one looks at all the capabilities, equipment and full-time manpower in the four brigades, then Stage 1 involves those brigades being tasked to form units from their internal resources for ongoing day-to-day operations. Stage 2 adds in the additional forces from outside the four brigades such as ResF individual augmentees and up to sub-unit sized elements. Stage 3 sees a significant expansion of the force by way of ResF deployments beyond the current capabilities contained within the four brigades. Stage 4 sees a major national effort including raising new forces and equipment capabilities.

MOBILIZATION STAGE	OPERATIONALENVIRONMENT	SIZE OF FORCE
STAGE 1 (FORCE GENERATION)	VIEW 2	UNIT OR BATTLE GROUP
STAGE 2 (FORCE ENHANCEMENT)	VIEW 1 OR 2	BRIGADE (LIMITED SUSTAINMENT)
STAGE 3 (FORCE EXPANSION)	VIEW 1 OR 2	BRIGADE (SUSTAINED)
STAGE 4 (NATIONAL MOBILIZATION)	VIEW 1	BRIGADE AND ECHELONS ABOVE

Canada's problem is readiness. The CA is barely able to handle platoon level ResF augmentation without a significant training run-up. I see the term "surge" of existing ResF resources really coming in at the higher end of Stage 2 and Stage 3. Stage 4 really deals with national efforts which would require a growth of the ResF and national industry well beyond its current structure.

To get back to the topic of ship building. I think we are getting enough CSCs. I think we're well short of support ships and need at least one more per coast. Yes to subs and weaponized ice breakers. And lots of cheap little semi-disposable, possibly autonomous, weapon platforms oriented towards ASW; Anti-air; Anti-ship. IMHO we need to target the NavRes for those latter systems. They're the type of things that don't need to go to sea much until View 1 becomes a reality and then you quickly need lots. And yes, turn them out at a slow rate to keep the yards viable building replacement ships. But mostly, build weapon systems.

I'm not bullish on ship to shore capabilities.

 

[suffolkowner]

Boy, Kirkhill, you really like to talk to yourself, don't you.

Just kidding!

I want to see those MCDV replacements. i want to see them fast, and I want them to be very much non-USA dependent.

Here's my dream:

Made in Canada Corvete (or light frigate - your choice of denomination) 2,000 to 2,400 tons displacement, 120 meters approx. length with: 32 CAMM-MR, 76 mm Leonardo main gun, 2x 35 mm remote controlled gun, SMART-S Mk 2, CANTASS, 2x French SLAT anti-torpedo system, CANTASS, hangar for one Merlin ASW helicopter, CCS330. Size of purchase: 12 but not, repeat not, at the expense of any of the RCD's.

However, bought as an emergency program, with the Halifax's being brought home from oversea deployment as training ships to get these ready for front line employment.

seems doubtful we could do it. Also seems a long way from a MCDV

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

But it meets the requirements for a modern corvette: A small-ish vessel capable of close escort work in a group, capable of handling single threat environments, either ASW or AAW, at a time, or capable of acting alone in a lower threat environment such as constabulary work or anti-piracy / embargo scenarios.

P.S.: I forgot to specify that the vessel I envisaged would have a simpler power plant: Twin diesels providing for two shafts with variable pitch propellers, for a max speed of 24-26 Kts range.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You're not wrong. Note the below chart shows Canada's mobilization stages. View 1 is major conflict, View 2 is lesser operations which might involve minor conflict and OOTW.

If one looks at all the capabilities, equipment and full-time manpower in the four brigades, then Stage 1 involves those brigades being tasked to form units from their internal resources for ongoing day-to-day operations. Stage 2 adds in the additional forces from outside the four brigades such as ResF individual augmentees and up to sub-unit sized elements. Stage 3 sees a significant expansion of the force by way of ResF deployments beyond the current capabilities contained within the four brigades. Stage 4 sees a major national effort including raising new forces and equipment capabilities.

MOBILIZATION STAGE	OPERATIONALENVIRONMENT	SIZE OF FORCE
STAGE 1 (FORCE GENERATION)	VIEW 2	UNIT OR BATTLE GROUP
STAGE 2 (FORCE ENHANCEMENT)	VIEW 1 OR 2	BRIGADE (LIMITED SUSTAINMENT)
STAGE 3 (FORCE EXPANSION)	VIEW 1 OR 2	BRIGADE (SUSTAINED)
STAGE 4 (NATIONAL MOBILIZATION)	VIEW 1	BRIGADE AND ECHELONS ABOVE

Canada's problem is readiness. The CA is barely able to handle platoon level ResF augmentation without a significant training run-up. I see the term "surge" of existing ResF resources really coming in at the higher end of Stage 2 and Stage 3. Stage 4 really deals with national efforts which would require a growth of the ResF and national industry well beyond its current structure.

To get back to the topic of ship building. I think we are getting enough CSCs. I think we're well short of support ships and need at least one more per coast. Yes to subs and weaponized ice breakers. And lots of cheap little semi-disposable, possibly autonomous, weapon platforms oriented towards ASW; Anti-air; Anti-ship. IMHO we need to target the NavRes for those latter systems. They're the type of things that don't need to go to sea much until View 1 becomes a reality and then you quickly need lots. And yes, turn them out at a slow rate to keep the yards viable building replacement ships. But mostly, build weapon systems.

I'm not bullish on ship to shore capabilities.

Some thought should be given to designing and installing hardpoints and necessary cabling and space to provide self defense armament/sensors on the new CCG icebreakers and multi-purpose ships. They don't need to be armed yet, but it would be good if capable to do so. I would push to have all major CCG vessels armed with a couple of .50cals to provide protective cover for hosted boarding parties. It would also slowly change the mindset of the crews, Captains and management as to the role of sovereignty enforcement.

 

[FJAG]

Some thought should be given to designing and installing hardpoints and necessary cabling and space to provide self defense armament/sensors on the new CCG icebreakers and multi-purpose ships. They don't need to be armed yet, but it would be good if capable to do so. I would push to have all major CCG vessels armed with a couple of .50cals to provide protective cover for hosted boarding parties. It would also slowly change the mindset of the crews, Captains and management as to the role of sovereignty enforcement.

Absolutely. The army used to (maybe still does) have a concept of FFR "Fitted For Radio" which simply indicated that a certain vehicle might not be equipped with radios but had the necessary battery, alternator and cabling to support one later if desired. The British WMIK Land Rover (Weapon Mounted Installation Kit) was a Land Rover version with additional cages and hard points to enable the mounting of a variety of weapon systems.

I know it's a bit more complex to design ships (and vehicles) to take heavier weapon systems so as to throw off their balance, sea worthiness etc, and to integrate sensors with weapons etc., but it's a step that needs to be taken. As is the industrial capability to produce the weapons being used. IMHO, every hull that can't fight is wasted capital.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I would push to have all major CCG vessels armed with a couple of .50cals to provide protective cover for hosted boarding parties. It would also slowly change the mindset of the crews, Captains and management as to the role of sovereignty enforcement.

If only there were crew in the CCG that knew how to do this. (Cough! Cough! ex-DFO's, if any are left in the service)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I forgot to add that I would not trust the RCMP operating from the Mid-shore Patrol Vessels with .50 cals.

 

[RedFive]

I forgot to add that I would not trust the RCMP operating from the Mid-shore Patrol Vessels with .50 cals.

Why not?

 

[Kirkhill]

Some thought should be given to designing and installing hardpoints and necessary cabling and space to provide self defense armament/sensors on the new CCG icebreakers and multi-purpose ships. They don't need to be armed yet, but it would be good if capable to do so. I would push to have all major CCG vessels armed with a couple of .50cals to provide protective cover for hosted boarding parties. It would also slowly change the mindset of the crews, Captains and management as to the role of sovereignty enforcement.

It could also supply platforms for the Naval Reserves in the event. If the Coast Guard won't go to sea then the Reserves could/would/should.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. Exactly. A St-Laurent with AAW for self protection. But with minimal US technology, so it is more European tech that we can get the Intellectual property rights for.

As an ASW escort, it would still work fine.

The one thing I would challenge is the Merlin, hangar and flight deck. I know we pioneered heavy helos off of small ships but do we still need them now?

I still lean towards the clean stern, like the OSVs, which can be fitted with modularized solutions. That also, to my mind, inherently suggests a more stable hull design capable of managing various load placements and shifting loads.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Some thought should be given to designing and installing hardpoints and necessary cabling and space to provide self defense armament/sensors on the new CCG icebreakers and multi-purpose ships. They don't need to be armed yet, but it would be good if capable to do so. I would push to have all major CCG vessels armed with a couple of .50cals to provide protective cover for hosted boarding parties. It would also slowly change the mindset of the crews, Captains and management as to the role of sovereignty enforcement.

There was a podcast on the CGAI network recently that talked about this exactly. If the Captain and possibly other officers were “commissioned” with the authority to apply and enforce the law at sea, any CCG vessel becomes a vessel of opportunity in a security setting, negating the need for RCMP, CBSA, DFO officers to be embarked.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why not?

Because the mid-shore assigned to the RCMP operate in the River and Great Lakes in much too crowded waters and I don't trust police forces, including the RCMP, in the safe use of heavy weapons. My experience with LEOs is that they view all weapons as if they were their little hand guns, with the rounds stopping quickly not far from their discharge point or being stopped by the first wall. I have seen them handle more powerful long guns - near military grade - and not seem to realize that they have to be sure what is within one kilometer of its discharge point. A .50 cal. needs you to be aware of what's three to four kilometers beyond.

The one thing I would challenge is the Merlin, hangar and flight deck. I know we pioneered heavy helos off of small ships but do we still need them now?

Yes. You don't fight submarines with a ship. You fight them as far away from the ship (and whatever you are protecting) as possible, thus, with a helicopter.

There was a podcast on the CGAI network recently that talked about this exactly. If the Captain and possibly other officers were “commissioned” with the authority to apply and enforce the law at sea, any CCG vessel becomes a vessel of opportunity in a security setting, negating the need for RCMP, CBSA, DFO officers to be embarked.

You would still need DFO's because its not enough to know the law, you need extensive knowledge and experience in fishing and fishing equipment that require long training and lots of time in as "junior" before you can undertake the boardings yourself as the lead. No point in having everyone go through that training process when a much smaller number of specialists will suffice.

As to CBSA, I don't know where CCG captains stand, but all naval C.O.'s are (or at least in my days, were) delegated officers under the Customs Act and we could carry out boarding of any vessel we suspected of illegally entering Canada and carry out a customs inspection.

 

[RedFive]

Because the mid-shore assigned to the RCMP operate in the River and Great Lakes in much too crowded waters and I don't trust police forces, including the RCMP, in the safe use of heavy weapons. My experience with LEOs is that they view all weapons as if they were their little hand guns, with the rounds stopping quickly not far from their discharge point or being stopped by the first wall. I have seen them handle more powerful long guns - near military grade - and not seem to realize that they have to be sure what is within one kilometer of its discharge point. A .50 cal. needs you to be aware of what's three to four kilometers beyond.

Fair enough. I can tell you there's enough former Reg or active PRes people around in the RCMP that the actual deployment of the M2 .50 or C6 or another similar crew served weapon wouldn't actually be a challenge, and considering what's 3-4kms behind the target wouldn't be an issue.

There's also enough experienced maritime enforcement trained officers (at least where I am) to crew such a class of vessels. So if there was enough political willpower and money provided, we could do it at least in the short term by putting those two groups together. Where I think we would run into issues is creating a culture of safety and excellence in such a unit, as people come and go and we would be forced to take members who have no relevant experience and make them change their mindsets. You could hand select the members you wanted to start such a unit up, but eventually you're going to get some window licking mouth breather who thinks the unit is a cool place to never work hard again, and mitigating that would be really hard.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. You don't fight submarines with a ship. You fight them as far away from the ship (and whatever you are protecting) as possible, thus, with a helicopter.

It wouldn't be a Sunday without me saying Yeh, but...

Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Hunting submarines with drones | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com