New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[PrairieFella]

Iowa gets activated for the third time at nearly 100 years old:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Iowa gets activated for the third time at nearly 100 years old:

B-52's laugh in JP-4

 

[Rudburg]

B-52's laugh in JP-4

"Lazy battleships, sitting in mothballs and doing nothing for decades...they turn you into a monument and I'm still on ground alert in Minot."

 

[SeaKingTacco]

B-52's laugh in JP-4

JP-8/100

 

[Underway]

They have reported to be very capable vessels with regard to their hulls, seakeeping, speed, stealth, acoustic signatures and missile batteries however, there is some issues like lacking certain radars that puts them at a bit of a disadvantage now that things are back to peer to peer conflicts.

Oh I don't know. They carry a lot of missiles (80 VLS) still and are probably better placed to deal with USV's then other ships in the USN. We also have to start thinking in terms of the Task Group team with the insert of CEC instead of ships on their own. What does a Zumwalt bring to the table in terms of Task Group resources/capability?

Its also very hard to detect a Zumwalt honestly as well. That counts for something.

 

[Maxman1]

Iowa gets activated for the third time at nearly 100 years old:

Meanwhile , USS New Jersey:

 

[Rainbow1910]

VAdm Topshee giving some thoughts regarding the MCDV replacement with his recent interview with the Canadian Defence Review. From classifying the CSC as a destroyer and now speaking of corvettes and WWII, Topshee seems to have some romantic ideas of the RCN of the past and is looking to carry some things forward. I am somewhat worried about these ideas about "more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship."

Replacing the MCDV with something that isn't the MCDV is a disaster in the making potentially, everything from overly complex, feature kept designs to encroaching on the CSC program and resulting in cuts there. I hope the RCN is treading carefully with the MCDV replacement program, the potential for another mess seems high with this attitude.

CDR: "Is there going to be a follow on to the class? People have been talking about a Corvette type ship."

VAdm Topshee: "The nuance that I would offer is that the MCDV replacement will not be an MCDV. We have started some theorizing around what would a Canadian Multi-mission Corvette look like? It's a nod to our history and I love the fact that we were a corvette and destroyer navy in the Second World War. What we're probably building is something that's going to be more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship. The driving philosophy behind whatever comes is that it needs to be what we could not quickly replicate in a time of war. I think what we need to make sure we do with what's being called the Canadian Multi-mission Corvette, is figure out the core sort of warship systems that we need to have, the type of thing that you can't build quickly in wartime. The first part of any project is always that sort of initial identification of requirements, and that's very much the phase of the thinking that we're at right now.

 

[Halifax Tar]

VAdm Topshee giving some thoughts regarding the MCDV replacement with his recent interview with the Canadian Defence Review. From classifying the CSC as a destroyer and now speaking of corvettes and WWII, Topshee seems to have some romantic ideas of the RCN of the past and is looking to carry some things forward. I am somewhat worried about these ideas about "more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship."

Replacing the MCDV with something that isn't the MCDV is a disaster in the making potentially, everything from overly complex, feature kept designs to encroaching on the CSC program and resulting in cuts there. I hope the RCN is treading carefully with the MCDV replacement program, the potential for another mess seems high with this attitude.

I mean if we want to keep the coastal defence stuff I give you the Finish Coastal Defence Ship Väinämöinen as an idea.

Finnish coastal defence ship Väinämöinen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Stoker]

VAdm Topshee giving some thoughts regarding the MCDV replacement with his recent interview with the Canadian Defence Review. From classifying the CSC as a destroyer and now speaking of corvettes and WWII, Topshee seems to have some romantic ideas of the RCN of the past and is looking to carry some things forward. I am somewhat worried about these ideas about "more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship."

Replacing the MCDV with something that isn't the MCDV is a disaster in the making potentially, everything from overly complex, feature kept designs to encroaching on the CSC program and resulting in cuts there. I hope the RCN is treading carefully with the MCDV replacement program, the potential for another mess seems high with this attitude.

Word has it that the VAdm's latest contribution was that we are classifying the River Class as destroyers. Apparently the new RCN march to replace Heart of Oak was also his as well.
I understand where they're coming from on the MCDV replacement although I still think we need something as simple as possible and easy to maintain. We should of done this for AOPS as well, we made that ship too complicated and now maintenance is apparently not getting done as its a pretty small technical department and a large ship.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't forget, he also brought paid parking to Halifax.

 

[Underway]

Don't forget, he also brought paid parking to Halifax.

How's that? Halifax parking was paid when I was there in 2017-19.

Edit: and you couldn't get a parking pass until you had 10 years of service. Halifax parking has been screwed up for the better part of the last 20 years.

 

[Czech_pivo]

How's that? Halifax parking was paid when I was there in 2017-19.

Edit: and you couldn't get a parking pass until you had 10 years of service. Halifax parking has been screwed up for the better part of the last 20 years.

That's crazy that you have to pay for parking on GoC land as a GoC employee. The ONLY cost, if at all, should be from a cost recovery aspect - parking fee should be equal to the annual maintenance cost to maintain the lot and the salary of the parking attendants.

 

[Stoker]

How's that? Halifax parking was paid when I was there in 2017-19.

Edit: and you couldn't get a parking pass until you had 10 years of service. Halifax parking has been screwed up for the better part of the last 20 years.

He was the base commander when paid parking was implemented, it was a dumpster fire. When I got in it was 5 years and we had more people.

 

[Underway]

VAdm Topshee giving some thoughts regarding the MCDV replacement with his recent interview with the Canadian Defence Review. From classifying the CSC as a destroyer and now speaking of corvettes and WWII, Topshee seems to have some romantic ideas of the RCN of the past and is looking to carry some things forward. I am somewhat worried about these ideas about "more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship."

Replacing the MCDV with something that isn't the MCDV is a disaster in the making potentially, everything from overly complex, feature kept designs to encroaching on the CSC program and resulting in cuts there. I hope the RCN is treading carefully with the MCDV replacement program, the potential for another mess seems high with this attitude.

Concept of Operations for the next ship project is still being written. I don't say MCDV replacement because I think that in the military sense we aren't going to replace the MCDV's. The CAF replaces capabilities (or lets them lapse) not platforms. If something comes along and does the same job but better then we'll switch to that (battleship replaced by aircraftcarrier as a classic navy example)

I would argue that the MCDV's (capability wise) are already in the process of being replaced. The AOPS have the vast majority of MCDV capabilities just better. Better sensors, range, speed, weapons, modular capability, etc... They do cost more and there are less of them (hulls matter). They are a better platform for embarking USCG counter drug teams, trialing new technologies, are more future proof (space and power), and much more.

So whatever hulls we have that need to come after the MCDV's don't need to replace all those capabilities, they need to augment them, augment the CSC, do some capabilities better, perhaps replace another capability or add a new capability/fill in a gap.

I think the RCN thinking about going the RAN route. A tier 2 combatant to augment the tier 1 CSC.

I also think that VAdm Topshee is referring to a proper modern corvette with weapons/damage control capabilities beyond WW2 style corvettes. Remember he's talking to a civilian and the Canadian Historical Zeitgeist remembers corvettes a whalers with wooden guns and depth charges.

Aslo there is only one combatant builder approved under the NSPS, and that's Irving. Their dance card seems pretty full right now.

Word has it that the VAdm's latest contribution was that we are classifying the River Class as destroyers. Apparently the new RCN march to replace Heart of Oak was also his as well.

They were called destroyers before he rubber stamped it. Because they lean more to Command Control AAW then GP. So the nomenclature is correct. Not sure about the H of DDGH. Could have just left them at DDG but meh.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Have a listen to what Emily has to say. The roots of the issues plaguing the warship design and production are very common.

VAdm Topshee giving some thoughts regarding the MCDV replacement with his recent interview with the Canadian Defence Review. From classifying the CSC as a destroyer and now speaking of corvettes and WWII, Topshee seems to have some romantic ideas of the RCN of the past and is looking to carry some things forward. I am somewhat worried about these ideas about "more capable than what might come to mind with a corvette because it has to be a real warship."

Replacing the MCDV with something that isn't the MCDV is a disaster in the making potentially, everything from overly complex, feature kept designs to encroaching on the CSC program and resulting in cuts there. I hope the RCN is treading carefully with the MCDV replacement program, the potential for another mess seems high with this attitude.

Do they want something that can take on more roles than an MCDV does now, if so, what would those roles be? FONOPS in the SCS, possibly? Or is it that they just want a platform that addresses the class’s shortcomings to be able to better perform the tasking it does now. How much of a difference on Op CARIBBE does a 7-10 kt speed increase make, for instance? I’m sure more space for an embarked LEDET would be an asset as well.

Basically, what role do you want this vessel to play short of actual combat in contested waters that needs a complicated platform?

 

[PrairieFella]

Concept of Operations for the next ship project is still being written. I don't say MCDV replacement because I think that in the military sense we aren't going to replace the MCDV's. The CAF replaces capabilities (or lets them lapse) not platforms. If something comes along and does the same job but better then we'll switch to that (battleship replaced by aircraftcarrier as a classic navy example)

I would argue that the MCDV's (capability wise) are already in the process of being replaced. The AOPS have the vast majority of MCDV capabilities just better. Better sensors, range, speed, weapons, modular capability, etc... They do cost more and there are less of them (hulls matter). They are a better platform for embarking USCG counter drug teams, trialing new technologies, are more future proof (space and power), and much more.

So whatever hulls we have that need to come after the MCDV's don't need to replace all those capabilities, they need to augment them, augment the CSC, do some capabilities better, perhaps replace another capability or add a new capability/fill in a gap.

I think the RCN thinking about going the RAN route. A tier 2 combatant to augment the tier 1 CSC.

I also think that VAdm Topshee is referring to a proper modern corvette with weapons/damage control capabilities beyond WW2 style corvettes. Remember he's talking to a civilian and the Canadian Historical Zeitgeist remembers corvettes a whalers with wooden guns and depth charges.

Aslo there is only one combatant builder approved under the NSPS, and that's Irving. Their dance card seems pretty full right now.


They were called destroyers before he rubber stamped it. Because they lean more to Command Control AAW then GP. So the nomenclature is correct. Not sure about the H of DDGH. Could have just left them at DDG but meh.

As a complete navy ignoramus, what does a modern corvette entail vis-à-vis a second world war corvette? I'm familiar with the armament, capabilities, etc of the Flower-class, is it similar in scope to be used mainly for pickets and convoy escort?

Would something like this be good for the RCN or is it too big?

Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Don't forget, he also brought paid parking to Halifax.

So he got Treasury Board to make a Halifax Parking Policy, did he? Pretty powerful for 4 ring Base Commander, don’t you think?

Or was he the guy in the seat when the music stopped and he enforced the policy Treasury Board set years before, but nobody enforced?

 

[dapaterson]

So he got Treasury Board to make a Halifax Parking Policy, did he? Pretty powerful for 4 ring Base Commander, don’t you think?

Or was he the guy in the seat when the music stopped and he enforced the policy Treasury Board set years before, but nobody enforced?

Look, if you're going to insist on logic and facts you'll never succeed on the internet.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Look, if you're going to insist on logic and facts you'll never succeed on the internet.

You brought it up.

 

[Underway]

As a complete navy ignoramus, what does a modern corvette entail vis-à-vis a second world war corvette? I'm familiar with the armament, capabilities, etc of the Flower-class, is it similar in scope to be used mainly for pickets and convoy escort?

Would something like this be good for the RCN or is it too big?

Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Modern corvettes to frigates are like modern frigates to destroyers. The dividing line is a bit fuzzy.

Equipment wise some higher end Corvettes look identical to the Halifax Class on the top end. On the low end they can be patrol vessels with mainly gun armaments. Modern Corvettes are not dedicated ASW platforms anymore like the Flower Class were.

Their main differentiation to frigates is that they have low endurance, and are not expected for long term deployments away from a home port. The example you used is the German Branschweig class which is optimized for combat in the Baltic. It doesn't deploy further then the North Sea. Corvettes are for short sharp engagements where long range sensors are not required. They can't take a hit as their tonnage is to low, but can punch above their weight. Again this is a generalization.