New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Swampbuggy]

How about the Type 31.

I think that’s a little big and crew intensive for what they’re looking for. It’s essentially a somewhat less capable HALIFAX, so I think that might be overkill.

 

[Maxman1]

I think that’s a little big and crew intensive for what they’re looking for. It’s essentially a somewhat less capable HALIFAX, so I think that might be overkill.

They're projected to have a crew of 80, so more than the Kingstons but significantly less than the Halifax.

 

[JMCanada]

15 CSC (205 crew) 3075
8-12 Submarines crewed with a mix of German and allies sailors under an international agreement (60 crew) 720
4 JSS crewed with GOC crew and the RCN we need to operate them. (60 crew) 240
6 Corvettes. 57mm, 35mm, 12 NSM, Sea ram (60 crew) 360
6 MCM type ships (44 crew) 264
6 AOPS (68 crew) 408
2 Military sealift ships (all civilian)

The number one issue here is personnel, can't really abacate for 18 CSC when don't have the bodies.

6 AOPS x 68
6 MCM/OPV (Vigilance) x 40?
4 JSS x 60
16 non combatants = 888

6 SSK batch I (off the shelf) x60?
6 SSK batch II ( more Arctic capable) x60?
12 subs = 720

6 CSC (River) ASW/GP x205
6 CSC AAW (with 48-64 VLS cells) x205?
6 Tier 2/Corvettes/light frigates x 90-110?
6 Arsenal/large optionally crewed vessels x 8-16?
24 (18+6) Combatants = 3048-3216

Then, after this is done... I would like to see the new Dutch project of 6 ships to replace their OPVs and LPDs. If comes out to be great, I would like ... 4 such ships, revised to be also "Arctic-capable", as kinda amphibious / HADR.

 

[JMCanada]

How about the Type 31.

The EPC also has her small mission bay.

 

[Swampbuggy]

They're projected to have a crew of 80, so more than the Kingstons but significantly less than the Halifax.

Sure, but that seems light for DC in a vessel that is longer and displaces more than a CPF. I don’t know if that crew number is super realistic, crew burnout is a real worry. Look what happened to the LCS guys, reportedly.

 

[Maxman1]

Any update on that Vard design? And would there be any value in it mounting a 57mm to reuse the guns from the CPFs?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Instant bliss for who? you? I hope you wished for the sudden influx of personnel we would need to actually pull that off. We can get creative with how we normally crew the ships.

15 CSC (205 crew) 3075
8-12 Submarines crewed with a mix of German and allies sailors under an international agreement (60 crew) 720
4 JSS crewed with GOC crew and the RCN we need to operate them. (60 crew) 240
6 Corvettes. 57mm, 35mm, 12 NSM, Sea ram (60 crew) 360
6 MCM type ships (44 crew) 264
6 AOPS (68 crew) 408
2 Military sealift ships (all civilian)

The number one issue here is personnel, can't really abacate for 18 CSC when don't have the bodies.

Interesting that the crew of the Corvette you purpose is 8 less than an AOPS but yet the Corvette listed has a 57mm, a 35mm,12 NSM and Sea Ram and the AOPS has a 25mm and a pair of 50cals.

The last CSC is 25yrs out and I’m sure the last sub will be as well but yet here we are wringing our hands on personnel shortages 20-25yrs into the future. That’s a lot, a lot of runway to solve the problem.

A new recruit coming into the RCN right now will more than likely be retired with a full pension when the last CSC or Sub enters service. Good chance I’ll be dead by then as well as I’ll be 80 at that point.

The South Korean subs have a compliment of 50 and the Type 212CD have a crew of 27(!?!). 12 Type 212CD x 27 = 324, saving of over 50% in crewing needs.
Divest the AOPS to the CCG frees up the crew needs of 2 CSC at 408 crew members.

 

[Stoker]

Interesting that the crew of the Corvette you purpose is 8 less than an AOPS but yet the Corvette listed has a 57mm, a 35mm,12 NSM and Sea Ram and the AOPS has a 25mm and a pair of 50cals.

Don't read anything into it, I threw a bunch of together quickly although automation could take the crews down significantly. AOPS could actually sail with quite a few people less.

The last CSC is 25yrs out and I’m sure the last sub will be as well but yet here we are wringing our hands on personnel shortages 20-25yrs into the future. That’s a lot, a lot of runway to solve the problem.

From recent experience we'll need that extra "runway"

A new recruit coming into the RCN right now will more than likely be retired with a full pension when the last CSC or Sub enters service. Good chance I’ll be dead by then as well as I’ll be 80 at that point.

Cool

The South Korean subs have a compliment of 50 and the Type 212CD have a crew of 27(!?!). 12 Type 212CD x 27 = 324, saving of over 50% in crewing needs.
Divest the AOPS to the CCG frees up the crew needs of 2 CSC at 408 crew members.

It sounds that you don't really like AOPS, what do you suggest we send into the ice? submarines?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Don't read anything into it, I threw a bunch of together quickly although automation could take the crews down significantly. AOPS could actually sail with quite a few people less.

From recent experience we'll need that extra "runway"

Cool

It sounds that you don't really like AOPS, what do you suggest we send into the ice? submarines?

No, I like the AOPS, I just like them in the CCG
Unless we station them in the summer months at a US CCG station in Alaska, they will never be able to track Chinese/Russian ships into our water unless by miracle they are already on site. The recent event where we had to send a CPF to monitor them is a perfect example. The CPF has the speed to get in station substantially quickly than the AOPS.
Better suited for the CCG than the RCN.

 

[Stoker]

No, I like the AOPS, I just like them in the CCG
Unless we station them in the summer months at a US CCG station in Alaska, they will never be able to track Chinese/Russian ships into our water unless by miracle they are already on site. The recent event where we had to send a CPF to monitor them is a perfect example. The CPF has the speed to get in station substantially quickly than the AOPS.
Better suited for the CCG than the RCN.

As I suspect you know the CCG is not an armed force and AOPS with all its perceived Worts is great for Op Caribs and anything else the GOC decides for them within the capabilities of the ship. Its a great training platform for the new river class.

You don't think the US and Canada already see where ships are in the Arctic and are able to track them....no value in placing an AOPS in the NW passage?

 

[Czech_pivo]

As I suspect you know the CCG is not an armed force and AOPS with all its perceived Worts is great for Op Caribs and anything else the GOC decides for them within the capabilities of the ship. Its a great training platform for the new river class.

You don't think the US and Canada already see where ships are in the Arctic and are able to track them....no value in placing an AOPS in the NW passage?

Then use the AOPS as a bridging platform to the new Corvettes/Rivers are available and then divest them to the CCG.

The approaches to our Arctic waters on the west coast include a lot of US waters, working out an agreement with the US to station an AOPS in Alaskan waters from July-September makes complete sense.
Our waters are basically the Yukon/Alaskan border to Prince Patrick Island. Once a ship enters the NW Passage, considered by us to be CDN inland waters, that ship should fall under CCG jurisdiction, not RCN.

As for OP Caribbe, I’m sure there would be a significant cost savings in using a Corvette, say 1,600-1,800 tons vs a 6k+ ton vessel and potentially a vessel that will have a top speed at 22-25knts vs 19knts.

 

[Stoker]

Then use the AOPS as a bridging platform to the new Corvettes/Rivers are available and then divest them to the CCG.

Why? we'll still need the platform to patrol the Arctic as an armed force much the same as our Allies and still an excellent platform to force generate sailors for other platforms. You my friend are oblivious to the importance of training sailors.

The approaches to our Arctic waters on the west coast include a lot of US waters, working out an agreement with the US to station an AOPS in Alaskan waters from July-September makes complete sense.
Our waters are basically the Yukon/Alaskan border to Prince Patrick Island. Once a ship enters the NW Passage, considered by us to be CDN inland waters, that ship should fall under CCG jurisdiction, not RCN.

We will sending AOPS on a regular basis to the Western Arctic once the second one get sent west, no need to station anything in US waters. Sure CCG jurisdiction but are they an armed force?

As for OP Caribbe, I’m sure there would be a significant cost savings in using a Corvette, say 1,600-1,800 tons vs a 6k+ ton vessel and potentially a vessel that will have a top speed at 22-25knts vs 19knts.

Op Caribbes are a low risk mission, one of the reasons why we stopped sending Halifax class to do them. AOPS with their drones, ships boats, embarked forces accommodations, boarding party staging, equipment storage, and briefing rooms are great at supporting that mission. Remember how successful the Kingston Class at 15 knots have been on Op Caribbe? Corvettes will in likelihood be employed in higher risk missions globally.

 

[Kirkhill]

We wouldn't need amphibs if we had strategic lift and strategic lift could be handled by nationally flagged RoRos - a combination of minimal crewing automation, civilian mariners and RCNR sailors. Bolt on point defence and an escort Task Force.





This is the other basic workhorse vessel required - the Offshore Support Vessel - variously used for environmental response, fire fighting, towing, supporting UUVs, maintenance on cables and windfarms, crew transport, rapid movement of small numbers of containers.

Pickup trucks varying in displacement from 1000 to 6000 tonnes. Manned by commercial and provincial mariners as well as the Coast Guard and RCNR. Like the RoRos - augmented by bolt on assets for point defence or as arsenal augmentation.




The Mariner LUSV, the converted OSV/FCS has generated this

The Mariner X

www.maritimerobotics.com

It could be employed both minimally manned and optionally manned.

.....

So, if, as part of a National Defence strategy that incorporated a whole of government approach and Public Private Partnerships - that saw ships as extensions of the national road and rail network - the Government were to encourage the surplus production of these vessels and their associated crews and supply networks - then the Army and the Navy could both benefit from the capabilities in times of need and the Civilian world would benefit on a daily basis.

....

DND could lease a couple of RoRos on standby for Disaster Response.

 

[Furniture]

No, I like the AOPS, I just like them in the CCG
Unless we station them in the summer months at a US CCG station in Alaska, they will never be able to track Chinese/Russian ships into our water unless by miracle they are already on site. The recent event where we had to send a CPF to monitor them is a perfect example. The CPF has the speed to get in station substantially quickly than the AOPS.
Better suited for the CCG than the RCN.

The REG didn't go because she was faster... I'm not sure who told you that, but they were pretty far off the mark.

 

[Rainbow1910]

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.

I generally share your opinions with the MCDV replacement going forward, all of this excess capability is potentially great but losing track of the cost and personnel efficient MCDV type vessel in the scramble for more, more, more is potentially quite disastrous for the RCN going forward.

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.

I generally say MCDV replacement because the roles that the MCDV fulfill arguable need to be replaced. AOPS is a great ship but it is fundamentally a large, compromise design that is inefficient or not very well suited to a lot of missions that a typical OPV or smaller corvette type vessel would be better at. Having them taken away from their intended purposes for some of these other roles as well when we only have 6 ships might cause issues as well.

Going for a Tier 2 combatant would be a fundamental change for the RCN force structure and one I am unsure is completely wise considering the issues we're looking at operating parts of the fleet we already have planned. If they want something that can provide a reasonable combat capability while also having the endurance to be useful to the RCN AND fulfill the roles of the MCDV, it sounds to me like we're staring down the barrel of potentially another frankenship.

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.

It is a fairly good generalization but the RCN needs to figure out what exactly they need and why they need it. Are we looking for a lower end combatant? If so, what is the projected role for that combatant? Where do we want to employ it? What weapons systems will it employ? Helicopters? Sensors? Will it have a multi-mission capability to take on the requirements of the MCDV's when they are gone?

More warfighting capability is all well and good but when the RCN is looking at a potential upcoming disaster with regard to personnel availability and funding pains, I start to question the viability of throwing away a cheap and cheerful OPV type vessel for a "corvette".

 

[Rainbow1910]

No, I like the AOPS, I just like them in the CCG
Unless we station them in the summer months at a US CCG station in Alaska, they will never be able to track Chinese/Russian ships into our water unless by miracle they are already on site. The recent event where we had to send a CPF to monitor them is a perfect example. The CPF has the speed to get in station substantially quickly than the AOPS.
Better suited for the CCG than the RCN.

The CCG does not want the AOPS, the Federal Govt basically forced them to take two AOPS and even then, they were extensively modified to fit their various civilian roles and requirements. It would be quite a fight to get the CCG to take and operate the AOPS as they were entirely designed to fulfill the mandate that falls upon the RCN. As they are configured currently, the RCN AOPS cannot effectively do the various roles required of the CCG and the CCG will not be doing the roles that the AOPS was designed for. The design is also so specifically suited to Canadian requirements that you'd be incredibly hard pressed to be able to find a foreign buyer for them.

End of the day, AOPS require the RCN to operate them and the CCG will fight tooth and nail to keep them out of their fleet. They won't be leaving the RCN anytime soon.

 

[Underway]

Going for a Tier 2 combatant would be a fundamental change for the RCN force structure and one I am unsure is completely wise considering the issues we're looking at operating parts of the fleet we already have planned. If they want something that can provide a reasonable combat capability while also having the endurance to be useful to the RCN AND fulfill the roles of the MCDV, it sounds to me like we're staring down the barrel of potentially another frankenship.

I understand your misgivings. Given the current situation they are completely valid. However I will counter that strategic naval policy is strategic build policy. And build policy is looking into the future, assessing needs and trying to get them.

We know the MCDV concept of operations or CONOPS (training, patrol, route survey, minehunting, support to other gov't dept). We know that AOPS/Orca's can do some of those, others can be done by any ship. There are also missions that MCDV's were purchased to do that no longer exist (minesweeping, gate vessel...).

The missing information here is the Corvette CONOPS. What is the requirement? Is there something new, or something that isn't required anymore. Cost and crewing are important but if the current MCDV can't provide the capability needed anymore then that criteria needs to be re-examined.

Just thinking here... perhaps its to perform a MCM mission in a contested naval environment (given UXV's could be anywhere)? A battlesweeper. Park itself, use UXV's to do MCM and also defend itself from shore based anti ship missiles and drones of the floating and hovering type. What about the return to the torpedo boat destroyer concept with a UXV destroyer instead? You don't need a huge ship to screen drones out. Perhaps both of these are concerns in the CONOPS where a direct one to one replacement of the MCDV just won't cut it.

That would require a corvette size vessel that goes 25-28kts with a modular payload capability, improved sensors and tailored weapons package.