• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
595
Points
890
That is the danger of unions.  While they are there looking out for the best interests of the union members/staff, I think most people just want to go to work & keep their lives simple.

Don't get me wrong.  Unions can and do serve a legitimate purpose in the welfare of their members.  I just feel that sometimes, petty things end up being big deals, which can cause more harm than good.

Is a less than 1% difference on their paycheck really going to affect them that much? 
 

KawarthaCruiser

Guest
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
10
The United States has provided a number of decommissioned USCG Hamilton class patrol ships to the Philippines government for their use.  By the time Canada’s new CSC class allow for Halifax class units to be retired would there be enough serviceable life left in any of the ships to make a similar gift worthwhile?  Canada would demonstrate to the Philippines and other Pacific partners we are contributing something to the common defense of the region and are more than just a trade partner wanting to make money in the region.

Apologies in advance if this is too far from the threads topic. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Interesting point Kawartha:

If ships were purchased and used for ten years, then sold directly or gifted (ie sold to Global Affairs to donate to needy governments) it seems to me that that would make it less costly to acquire newer vessels.  And we could forego the cost of life extension projects.

PS - a good chunk of my childhood was spent around Lock 19.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,459
Points
940
More Irving goodness http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1387683-200m-irving-loan-surety-kept-secret
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-about-make-tanks-we-know-them-obsolete-17158

Particularly, Russian experiences in Ukraine—where both sides are using upgraded Soviet-built tanks and anti-tank weapons—have shown that despite the best active, reactive and passive armor available, a tank will eventually be penetrated. “We discovered that no matter how skillful the crew, the tank would get up to ten hits,” Pukhov said during a luncheon at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C.—which is the foreign policy think-tank that publishes The National Interest—on July 26. "Even if you have perfect armor—active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you’ll still get five hits and you’re done. That’s why now you’re supposed to have some kind of Tank 2.0.”[/color]


It's the last bit that resonates with me. Anti-ship missiles are getting faster and faster, with some ridiculously long range (300nm). Anti-ship missiles and shore based launchers are hugely inexpensive when compared against the cost of a warship and the training for all the crew. How many modern missiles could a modern warship handle before their defensive systems were overloaded? You really only need one or two to get through and you've guaranteed a mission kill on most modern warships.

Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
880
Lumber said:
Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?

In which direction ?  Heavier armour packages ?  Increased missile defence systems ?

Perhaps the whole idea of battle groups engaging each other in open conflict on the high seas is a bit passé these days ? 

The future of blue water Navies is interesting.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Halifax Tar said:
In which direction ?  Heavier armour packages ?  Increased missile defence systems ?

Perhaps the whole idea of battle groups engaging each other in open conflict on the high seas is a bit passé these days ? 

The future of blue water Navies is interesting.

I will continue to argue for more ships, smaller ships, smaller crews, a higher percentage (well beyond zero) of unmanned platforms.  In my opinion you want to increase the number of targets/firing points/observation posts and decrease the their value by reducing the number of lives at risk on any one vessel.

You can't disperse as readily as the army.  You can, like the air force, play "Three card monte", and hide your C2 assets in the largest possible deck of cards.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Lumber said:
From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-about-make-tanks-we-know-them-obsolete-17158

It's the last bit that resonates with me. Anti-ship missiles are getting faster and faster, with some ridiculously long range (300nm). Anti-ship missiles and shore based launchers are hugely inexpensive when compared against the cost of a warship and the training for all the crew. How many modern missiles could a modern warship handle before their defensive systems were overloaded? You really only need one or two to get through and you've guaranteed a mission kill on most modern warships.

Maybe we should be rethinking the whole concept of warships?
The APAR/Smart-L combination, but mainly the APAR was able to handle 32 targets at once with 16 in the terminal phase simultaneously but then it was upgraded and that number has now gone up. I read somewhere that the system is now only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers but I have been unable to confirm this information.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
AlexanderM said:
The APAR/Smart-L combination, but mainly the APAR was able to handle 32 targets at once with 16 in the terminal phase simultaneously but then it was upgraded and that number has now gone up. I read somewhere that the system is now only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers but I have been unable to confirm this information.

Tracking 32 supersonic targets is one thing; hitting 32 supersonic missiles in the middle of their high-g weave with your own supersonic point defence missiles is a whole other bag. The APAR/SMART-L combo uses SM-2s, which are semi-active missiles which still require illumination for terminal guidance.

Even with the PAAMS system, which uses active seeker head Aster missiles, that's still a problem. 32 Anti-ship missiles clustered together is going to make ite extremely difficult for each counter missile to find it's target.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
George Wallace said:
Reality and Hollywood; two different things.

Reality and the BAE/Thales/Lockheed Martin/Raytheon brochure; two different things.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
Lumber said:
Tracking 32 supersonic targets is one thing; hitting 32 supersonic missiles in the middle of their high-g weave with your own supersonic point defence missiles is a whole other bag. The APAR/SMART-L combo uses SM-2s, which are semi-active missiles which still require illumination for terminal guidance.

Even with the PAAMS system, which uses active seeker head Aster missiles, that's still a problem. 32 Anti-ship missiles clustered together is going to make ite extremely difficult for each counter missile to find it's target.

Lumber,

APAR also provides the illumination of the targets with the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination technique.  So when it's doing target tracking it switches over to illumination and then back to tracking.  That's why you don't see separate fire-control radars with CWI on the De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen class AAW frigates which have APAR.  You don't need them.  APAR will do all of that as well as splash (gun fire) spotting. 
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Thumper81 said:
Lumber,

APAR also provides the illumination of the targets with the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination technique.  So when it's doing target tracking it switches over to illumination and then back to tracking.  That's why you don't see separate fire-control radars with CWI on the De Zeven Provinciën and Sachsen class AAW frigates which have APAR.  You don't need them.  APAR will do all of that as well as splash (gun fire) spotting.

My point about illumination wasn't a concern about "where's the source of the illumination?", it was a point about some of the draw back of illumination.

If you light up a cluster of 32 missiles with your illuminators, I'm willing to bet that your counter missiles aren't going to hit anything at all. Your missiles will get so confused by all of the radar returns, they'll just give up and take a nap in the ocean.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
880
A fully loaded CPF only carries 24 missiles.  8 of them being the Harpoon. 

Even if the other 16 all found their mark that still leave 16 for the EW and decoy systems, CIWS and 57mm...

It doesn't sound like a happy ending for the CPF.

Sorry I know I am sort of out of my lane, me being a Navy Storesman and not an ops type, but I have always felt our CPFs would either become floating hulks, after we made first contact, or we would be useless and need to RTB and rearm after we fired off our volley of missiles.

Just my uneducated thoughts...
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
While I share Lumber's view of counter-missile's deportment in a saturated environment, I have to say that, even in a near-peer conflict, the chance of encountering so many missiles fired at a single ship is pretty low to inexistent.

I am relying here on the number of missiles found on board near peers warships and the number of air launched/shore launched missiles available to such enemy. For instance, look at Halifax Tar's post below: As he states, the HAL's carry eight SSMs. However, about 98% of warships in the world only carry 8 SSMs or less. So to mount an attack of 32 SSM against a single frigate, they would have to have four ships attacking a single frigate simultaneously. what are the chances of such an engagement occurring?

Much more likely is that such a large number of missiles would only be used against a large force, such a carrier battle group, etc. in which case the missiles would split their attention between the various ships, who would themselves concentrate on their portion of the battle. There would be leakers but not a catastrophic situation as the one described here (32 missiles to a single ship with its counter-missiles confused).

I remind you again: The fact that an anti-ship missile has a 300 km range does not mean they can actually be launched effectively at 300 km. Also, with missiles, there is a tendency to be more careful in the expenditure of ammunition - both because they are very expansive and because you probably need to keep some on hand for your return to base as you can't reload at sea (except the US, partly) - unlike shells.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Oldgateboatdriver said:
While I share Lumber's view of counter-missile's deportment in a saturated environment, I have to say that, even in a near-peer conflict, the chance of encountering so many missiles fired at a single ship is pretty low to inexistent.

Agree 100%. This just goes back to my post that Reality and "the Brochure" are not the same thing. I'm not impressed by a claim that "Our AA system can shoot track and illuminate 32 targets at once", because first, that probably won't ever happen, and second, tracking/illuminating a target and hitting a target; two different things.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
880
Would an air threat not be a scenario where 32 missiles could be launched. 

I am assuming most attack aircraft can carry 4 missiles (at least) so that makes for 8 attacking aircraft. 

A much more plausible situation if you encounter an appropriately equipped and determined enemy.

Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?  Thus bringing the full weight of that BGs offensive and defensive capability into play.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Halifax Tar said:
Would an air threat not be a scenario where 32 missiles could be launched. 

I am assuming most attack aircraft can carry 4 missiles (at least) so that makes for 8 attacking aircraft. 

A much more plausible situation if you encounter an appropriately equipped and determined enemy.

Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?  Thus bringing the full weight of that BGs offensive and defensive capability into play.

It doesn't even need to be a full CBG.

Consider: when not in open conflict, USN Carriers often sail with just one Tico covering them (I like to call them their guard dog). In this scenario, you'd have only one AAW ship available to cover the carrier, and they would need to be able to shoot down numerous missiles at the same time to protect the carrier.  Would it be 32? Probably not. If the US isn't in a full scale shooting war, then chances of some terrorist/non-state actor/rogue element getting their hands on 32 anti-ship missiles is very low. If the US was in a full scale shooting war, then they wouldn't be alone with only a Tico covering them; they'd probably have the whole CBG in close proximity.


Halifax Tar said:
Agreed; that a CPF found alone in an open conflict is probably not a probable real world scenario as they are meant to integrate into battle groups, yes ?

Yes, and no. We're trained to integrate into battle groups, but first, from my experience, we don't do it very well, and second, our area-Air Defence capability is next to non-existent. The ESSMs on CPFs are meant for point defence; they are meant to protect the CPF, not to shoot missiles threatening other units (this is an update form the original Sea Sparrows, which could only shoot something down if it was coming straight at you).

A destroyer, may they rest in peace, could have shot down incoming missiles even if they were positioned on the opposite side of the carrier from where the missiles are coming from. CPFs, not the same story. If we tried, there would be a whole bunch of shrapnel holes and pissed off yanks aboard the carrier.
 
Top