# Are we going to spending too much money on FELEX?



## FSTO (11 Mar 2007)

This is just my personal opinion but I really believe that the Navy should only refit the last 6 frigates and used the money saved on the first six towards building the first flight of the SCSC. If the Navy really had balls they would forego the refit entirely and go for another JSS, 2 LHD's and the first flight of SCSC (or something similar).

I know it is too late for JSS right now but they should have went for an AOR with a fully automated engineering section, enough boson's to run the RAS gear, NAVCOMMS for message tx and enough officers to run the bridge. These ships would be required to deliver fuel and stores to the fleet, have a RORO capability and are not required to do the extra things that our AORs do now. 
The LHD's, SSKs, frigates and destroyers (or whatever replaces the frigates) would be the real warships.
All these ships would be designed for 25 year lifespan without a midlife refit.

This idea would require a government with a vision and long term defense plan that recognised that we are a maritime nation and should act as such.


----------



## R.O.S (11 Mar 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This idea would require a government with a *vision* and long term defense plan that recognised that we are a maritime nation and should *act* as such.



Key words... vision which needs leaders that can think... act implying that there is a need for leaders that can react to the changing world... are these to be our current politicians   that can't even agree on anything, and fear any change. With the way politics has been played here in Canada, its surprising that anything is done.


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2007)

... I have no idea on the leadership of the Navy these days but, from a personal perspective, it would require the Grand Admiral of the Fleet (CMS?) to put his vision into words and speak up.

What is it he wants, now, in the short term, mid term & long term...

The CDS, the CLS and to a certain extent the CAS have all spoken up & had their peace but, I haven't heard from the sea lord...


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The CDS, the CLS and to a certain extent the CAS have all spoken up & had their peace but, I haven't heard from the sea lord...



Geo...the Government is, rumour has it, going to get rid of AORs and DDHs, leaving the navy with only one type of fighting ship......i would bet that its pretty hard for the first sea lord of the admiralty (CMS) to come up with a meaningful vision to articulate.  I would at least think its drawing board time again.......

just my 0.02 though


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2007)

This may sound harsh but, here goes:

If the CMS objects to what has been proposed, shouldn't he speak out AND, if necessary, fall on his sword in protest......... or is he just punching his clock like many others have in the past?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2007)

I think it's pretty hard to be heard among the din from the current op in Afghanistan IMHO.
Navy's are very expensive and they take a long time to develop when you are committed to designing and building your ships in a country that doesn't sustain it's ship building capability from one contract to the next.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

The question is will half the funds that are destined to go to the first 6 Halifax be enough to help fund the SCSC?


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2007)

Instead of thinking about refitting 6 or 12 frigates and 2 or 3 tribals, we should be looking at dealing with shipyards to roll out a new ship every 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. 
Having a periodic building blitz is ridiculous and there is no shipyard in the country that can maintain itself on that kind of business..... resulting in having to pay tons of money for each new ship - regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign built vessel.

At present, the Navy does not appear to have come up with a public strategy that everyone can wrap their heads around.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Instead of thinking about refitting 6 or 12 frigates and 2 or 3 tribals, we should be looking at dealing with shipyards to roll out a new ship every 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years.
> Having a periodic building blitz is ridiculous and there is no shipyard in the country that can maintain itself on that kind of business..... resulting in having to pay tons of money for each new ship - regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign built vessel.



You're not exactly preaching anything new here........



> At present, the Navy  does not appear to have come up with a public strategy that everyone can wrap their heads around.



The government...........


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2007)

should the Navy be telling the Gov't what they need or should it be the Gov't telling the navy what it needs?

The army (thanks to the CDS) was able to go out and get what was needed, right this second - with a fair bit of hoopla and a fair bit of contreversy .... but there are C17s on the production line, M777s are deployed (with more on the way), Chinooks and Hercs are coming up next.....


----------



## FSTO (11 Mar 2007)

If the Navy doesn't watch out it will become irrelevant in the defence of this country. As witnessed by the shifting to the right of SCF (which I fear is the first step to outright cancellation) the Navy is now going full speed ahead on FELEX and damn the torpedoes on anything (including JSS) that will make us able to bring the full spectrum of warfare from the sea. The missile shooters and gunners have won the battle to keep their precious frigates alive but where have we (the Navy) won our spurs? Not firing Harpoons and SM2's. We have won them with NBP, MIO and inshore patrols. The Littoral is where it is at and we should be positioning ourselves to be able to work in this area. Because like it or not my fellow brethern in Dark Blue, the Army is the big dog in these parts and we have to be able to justify our ability to support them.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (11 Mar 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty hard to be heard among the din from the current op in Afghanistan IMHO.
> Navy's are very expensive and they take a long time to develop when you are committed to designing and building your ships in a country that doesn't sustain it's ship building capability from one contract to the next.



Perhaps its time to do as the historian Jack Granastein proposed in his book "Who Killed the Canadian Military" with a twist, take the "old" spruance class destroyers the US keeps offering and forget the whole "Canadianization Garbage" or even better the recently decommissioned Ticonderogas iot increase the fleet size with "principal Warships" the destoryers the most in need of replacement, I can say this I sold my soul to a tribal for 7 years, the next step is to build 1 warship per year per coast, that solves a couple of problems, 1. it keeps the fleet up to strength vessel wise and increases/maintains warship building skills at home, that also goes hand in hand with his theory of increasing troop strengh by at least 15000 in one fell swoop, we need to remember this country was build on warfare, and we need to be ready and equiped to fight on land in the air and sea when called to do so, as Canadians we have yet to back down from a fight. my penny and a half for what its worth


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2007)

And why buy 20-30 year old warships? We would still be in the same situation we are now only we would spend most of our money of maintenance of the Spruance class hulls....


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> even better the recently decommissioned *Ticonderogas* iot increase the fleet size with "principal Warships" the destoryers



Let me get this straight.......

we have hard enough a time having crews to sail Frigate and destroyer size warships...you want to buy cruisers ?

Spruances are being used as targets and Ticos are far from being retired


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (12 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight.......
> 
> we have hard enough a time having crews to sail Frigate and destroyer size warships...you want to buy cruisers ?
> 
> Spruances are being used as targets and Ticos are far from being retired



Indeed but that also goes hand in hand with the increase in troop strength, and nobody wants to know my solution to that one (its more than a little outside the box) but you are right the ticos are far from being retired but the flight 1 ticos have all but been decommisioned (the namesake for the class in 2004) as far as floating targets go Huron is due to be toatsed in a gunex/torpex god knows when, wouldn't it be odd for Algonquin to do the shooting, same class of ship.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> Indeed but that also goes hand in hand with the increase in troop strength, and nobody wants to know my solution to that one (its more than a little outside the box) but you are right the ticos are far from being retired but the flight 1 ticos have all but been decommisioned (the namesake for the class in 2004) as far as floating targets go Huron is due to be toatsed in a gunex/torpex god knows when, wouldn't it be odd for Algonquin to do the shooting, same class of ship.



A dramatic troop level increase is, IMHO, a pipedream considering the state of recruiting and our ability to train the recruits we do get.

Even if the Spruance DDG were purchassed without "Canadianization", they would still require massive upgrading....after all, they were retired for a reason.  Same can be said about any Ticonderoga CGs that have been decomissioned.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2007)

Beyond 76 mm I doubt the Alq would be involved. Its a good chance to prove the Harpoons on the CPFs.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (12 Mar 2007)

This is true, but we (the US and CDA) proved that missiles alone won't do the trick against the former USS Belleau Wood, 5 Direct Missile hits and it still took a Torp to do it in, but I was just going for the Irony a 280 taking out another lol

As for the recruiting issue, and this is a stretch, way outside the box, ge t a big green bus with Canadian Forced painted on the side and sit outside the welfare office, as they come out with thier welfare check, through them on the bus and say, you're working for your piece of the pie now, alternatively pick up everyone on Government and Dogulass streets with a cardboard sign that says helpe help myself (leaving out the so I can hit the liquor store) and start detailing (infantry, artillery, signals, nci op, navcomm and so on,) solves 2 issues at the same time, but not neccesarrily the kind of high value recruit we are looking for.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> This is true, but we (the US and CDA) proved that missiles alone won't do the trick against the former USS Belleau Wood, 5 Direct Missile hits and it still took a Torp to do it in, but I was just going for the Irony a 280 taking out another lol



yes it would be something to see....



> As for the recruiting issue, and this is a stretch, way outside the box, ge t a big green bus with Canadian Forced painted on the side and sit outside the welfare office, as they come out with thier welfare check, through them on the bus and say, you're working for your piece of the pie now, alternatively pick up everyone on Government and Dogulass streets with a cardboard sign that says helpe help myself (leaving out the so I can hit the liquor store) and start detailing (infantry, artillery, signals, nci op, navcomm and so on,) solves 2 issues at the same time, *but not neccesarrily the kind of high value recruit we are looking for*.



That last part is exactly what i was thinking............


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (12 Mar 2007)

or theres the other way, the one nobody wants (almost) mandatory service age 18-20 like a fair number of european countries (Sweden Comes to mind) of course the normal exemptions for academic studies, ilness, police and fire services and the like, employ these people in Garrison and put the carrer soldiers (sailors, Airtypes) "boots on the ground" so to speak, some of them might even take to service life and stick around,


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> or theres the other way, the one nobody wants (almost) mandatory service age 18-20 like a fair number of european countries



And you will note that some of those same countries are moving away from conscripts.  Bad idea altogether, IMHO, to employ people who have no desire to be there.....


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (12 Mar 2007)

no contest there


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Mar 2007)

There seems to be a general state of confusion in many navies about how to proceed so FELEX is actually a good fit within that state of confusion. Even the Type 45 Daring is now being produced with the weapons fit seeming to be a shifting package all the time. The USN LCS program is in some disarray due to cost and a fair bit of mission confusion. DDX, on the other hand, seems pretty much squared away. There's a reason for that with DDX- a large powerful warship is required to project real sea power in a hostile world. Canada is not going to be in that game from a naval perspective, both for reasons of cost and politics.  

Totally wild prediction for Canadian Navy over next 10-15 years

- cancellation of SCTF and BHS in late 2007;
- reduction in JSS from 3 to 2 in 2008; 
- reduction in MCDV from 12 to 7 in 2009;

-2009 will bring a liberal majority government and will be a bad year for the armed forces, particularly the Navy:
- scrapping of SSK's by 2011; 
- pay off of remaining DDH's without replacement; 
- reduction of FFH from 12 to 8 no later than 2011;  
- 2011 RFP for new build fleet proposal for large sized, small crew, multi-purpose, lightly armed warship;
- vessels will probably be along the lines of the cancelled RN Type 45 global mini cruiser at around 9000t, with some mild arctic weather capabilities; very limited basic defensive weapons fit; some Ro-Ro sealift capability; large flight deck; room to comfortably transport rescued evacuee's short distances;      
- 2013 first JSS commissions
- 2015 second JSS commissions
-2017, the first steel will be cut for new large surface warship as the remains of the FFH and MCDV fleet start to pay off; 
- 2024 the Canadian Navy will consist of just 5 of these newer ships and 2 JSS.  

It will be a Navy capable of transporting marine commando's and baby formula to the arctic; delivering aid and rescuing/removing civilians from trouble spots and disaster areas under limited threat environments; and doing nothing more without the USN/RN/ RAN providing cover.  It will be a Navy more relevant to Canadians because Canadians will be told this is what they need. It will also be a Navy less relevant to our real enemies, who will be thankful for what Canadians have been told.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2007)

Rather dark prediction but, IMHO, not far off the mark......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2007)

I hope its far off the mark....


----------



## geo (12 Mar 2007)

Disenchanted
Build two ships per year - one on each coast?.... 
soo - after 10 years we'd have 20 new-ish ships?
we'd we planning on decomissionning 10 yr old ships at year 10? sounds a little silly to me...

1 new ship per year, each year - alternating east/west coast
1 ship major refit per year on the opposing coast

Would help develop and maintain warship design, fabrication and support skills - but again, only on the assumption that we "desire" to develop and maintain such an ability (and with such a large coastline, it would be silly not to IMHO).

Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.


----------



## NCS_Eng (14 Mar 2007)

As I understand it the current line of thinking within DGMEPM is to adopt a more american style procurement model; ie one ship a year for 18 years. This will allow us to gradually pay off our older ships while ensuring that canada maintains a ship building industry. This is following the lessons learned from the CPF project, in which the industry collapsed soon after the last ship was made. The Single Class Surface Combatant is an interesting concept - the ship itself will be build in batches or flights, much like the Arliegh Burke DDGs. Thus the first 6 may have Area Air Defence capabilities while the next 12 may not - or the last 6 may take advantage of computer technology that was not in place for the first 6.

This is surely the case with the Burkes south of the border. The difference between DDG-51 and DDG-92 is night-and-day in regards to combat capabilities. 

As for FELEX, I won't comment on the project as I'm not directly involved but the last briefings I had on the topic lead me to believe it is a very ambitious time frame, and I hope it works out correctly. Ultimately it is a stop-gap until the SCSC project gets up and running.

Whiskey601 has created an interesting work of fiction but thats all it is.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Mar 2007)

NCS_Eng said:
			
		

> Whiskey601 has created an interesting work of fiction but thats all it is.



Thats right, just pure speculation. [hopefully]


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> should the Navy be telling the Gov't what they need or should it be the Gov't telling the navy what it needs?
> 
> The army (thanks to the CDS) was able to go out and get what was needed, right this second - with a fair bit of hoopla and a fair bit of contreversy .... but there are C17s on the production line, M777s are deployed (with more on the way), Chinooks and Hercs are coming up next.....



1. The Navy has to tell the Government what it can do with what it has.
    Day 1 Familiarization Briefing

2. The Government has to tell the Navy what it would like done.
   Day 1 Familiarization Briefing

3. The Navy then has to tell the Government how much it will cost to make up the difference.
   Many hours of staff work and dollars of studies by contractors

4. The Government then gets to decide how much of what it wants done is really important.
   Many hours of discussions with Navy, CF, Fisheries and Oceans, RCMP, Foreign Affairs, US, ABCA, NATO, UN various allies, domestic partners, Provinces, Treasury Board, Industry, Suppliers.

5. The Government then gets to decide on needs, wants and budget and inform Navy.

6. Navy then gets to tell Government that the budget is too small.

7. Government then gets to say, "Carry on regardless".

Beyond that it becomes a case of the Government making sure that the money is spent wisely.

But then there are elections....and economic crises and booms.


----------



## FredDaHead (14 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.



Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?

It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.

I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?
> 
> It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.
> 
> I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.



Fred.....areed that the FFHs are too small for C&C, thats why we normaly used the DDHs.

*IMHO*, in this Navy, CGs are too large...plain and simple.....too much ship, too much expense, too much crew


----------



## NCS_Eng (14 Mar 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?
> 
> It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.
> 
> I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.



Yeah, ask anyone who's ever sailed with fleet staff on board a CPF - its not a pleasant experience. Its bad enough on the 280's. With staff, air crew, riders and some trainees you can have close to 60 officers on board. They aren't keeping the 280's around for their Area Air Defense, I can tell you that - its their role as a command platform that they are used for, and its the reason (in my opinion) you will start to see them all payed-off the minute the first JSS gets its keel wet. 

It needn't be a "cruiser" (which is largely an academic/political classification now anyway), the JSS will do fine; all you need is the space for the people and as much coms as you can jam on there. In the future you will see all ships (including the SCSC) designed from the ground up for command capability. The current wisdom is that "steel is cheap", in comparison to the big-ticket combat systems, so the ships are being made larger and with more bunk space than before simply to give that extra capability.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2007)

I notice that all the new "Frigates" being produced by the Dutch, Spanish, Germans and Danes displace over 6000 tonnes now.  The Daring Type 45 is over 7000 tonnes.  Even the Norwegian Ice-Breaker/Arctic Patrol Vessel (also a deployable C&C asset) is over 6000 tonnes.

Anything wrong with going the route of the Danes and Norwegians and building big "empty" ships?  Stuff them full for the Air Defence role - leave some extra "space" for other duties like C&C, or support or transport?  Common hull and machinery with minimal ship handling crew.

Add people and systems for more complex vessels - build in modules.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Mar 2007)

What is the budget for FELEX at this time?


Matthew.


----------



## JasonSkald (15 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.



Don't forget the Ticonderoga class is a cruiser in name only... I believe it's built on a Spruance hull - it's the radar and AEGIS weapon system that makes it a 'cruiser'.


----------



## Navy_Blue (15 Mar 2007)

For the Ops types among us.  When we fuel and go RADHAZ safe how much contact with the outside world do we maintain.  This is a tricky question and if you feel it is OPSPEC shoot it down.  I'm asking because a ship like the JSS would/might spend considerable time fueling.  Trying to see if JSS would be as an effective C&C platform all the time like  a Destroyer would.

If a ship (CPF) sails with staff would it not make sense to pull every possible training billet and place a staff officer in there bunk.  I know training is essential but we have Baby(everything)O's.  In some cases I've seen EmbryO's.  I've sailed with staff and its no fun for the lower deck folks either.  If they ever get serious about manning 2 deck should be the place to start.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> For the Ops types among us.  When we fuel and go RADHAZ safe how much contact with the outside world do we maintain.  This is a tricky question and if you feel it is OPSPEC shoot it down.  I'm asking because a ship like the JSS would/might spend considerable time fueling.  Trying to see if JSS would be as an effective C&C platform all the time like  a Destroyer would.
> 
> If a ship (CPF) sails with staff would it not make sense to pull every possible training billet and place a staff officer in there bunk.  I know training is essential but we have Baby(everything)O's.  In some cases I've seen EmbryO's.  I've sailed with staff and its no fun for the lower deck folks either.  If they ever get serious about manning 2 deck should be the place to start.



Maybe we should bring back the Training Sqn concept. FELEX 8 of the ships for ops and make all the billets onboard operational...no training billets at all. Take four of the ships and forget about FELEX and make them strictly training platforms. Ah the good old days....4 Squadron will live again!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Mar 2007)

NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question. 

I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs _and_ fleet flagship....

I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.



How about having 2 crews for each ship......

Sort of like american SSBNs have "gold" and "blue" crew.......We could call ours "Red" and "white" crews


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question.
> 
> I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs _and_ fleet flagship....
> 
> I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.



1. this should be we have not problem maintaining short-range communications. as soon as we make our approach the HF (our long range stuff) goes bye bye for the duration.

2. I agree with you on this point the place for the warfare commanders place is on a priciple warship, the last thing you want to lose is both the HVU and the CTG.

3. Exactly, were allready dealing with burnout forces wide without re-rolling the navy


----------



## FSTO (15 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question.
> 
> I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs _and_ fleet flagship....
> 
> I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.



If we could commit the government to go ahead with SCSC right now then we could have batch 1 in the water by the time the 8th frigate is FELEXed (OMFG - does anyone remember DELEX? Did that give us FRED or just enough upgrades to allow Rusty-guts and her sisters to limp along until the Frigates arrived?).


----------



## NCS_Eng (15 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question.
> 
> I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs _and_ fleet flagship....
> 
> I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.



While I agree with you to a point, with JSS being designed from the ground up with Stellar C4ISR capabilities and the ability to hold a Joint (army/navy/airforce) command, it will be a simple matter to have the Commodore embark with his staff. Its the cheapest way, and therefore the way we are mostly likely going to go, at least until the SCSC comes along. The DDG's don't have many more years in them.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2007)

NCS_Eng said:
			
		

> While I agree with you to a point, with JSS being designed from the ground up with Stellar C4ISR capabilities and the ability to hold a Joint (army/navy/airforce) command, it will be a simple matter to have the Commodore embark with his staff. Its the cheapest way, and therefore the way we are mostly likely going to go, at least until the SCSC comes along. The DDG's don't have many more years in them.



Wow that's for sure. Huron already moth balled on West Coast and how much longer can ATH and IRO be expected to go?
The big question is wheter the Govt could be persuaded to speed up the procurement for ships in the same way they have sped up the process for aircraft?


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Mar 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> If we could commit the government to go ahead with SCSC right now then we could have batch 1 in the water by the time the 8th frigate is FELEXed (OMFG - does anyone remember DELEX? Did that give us FRED or just enough upgrades to allow Rusty-guts and her sisters to limp along until the Frigates arrived?).



FRED...what a wonderful piece of gear.  A dutch computer, which a Japanese company got the contract for the translation of the manual....translated from Dutch to Japanese, and Japanese to English.  Absolutely useless besides the CCT drawings.

My question re FELEX is how much of it is actually going to get done?  I mean really, how much of it is going to get chopped because we don't have the $$ to do it?

NS


----------



## TAS278 (19 Mar 2007)

Well with all the current rumours flying around the air force now and the navy I can see a lot of cancelations/cutbacks in planned upgrades. In this case no news is not good news


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Mar 2007)

I would wait til it happens before casting doubt on what will or won't happen.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Mar 2007)

Rumours are the worst thing possible.  Why can't we just have a balanced force!  It seems like we are always cutting one service to support another, then the next decade they switch to another service....


----------



## TAS278 (19 Mar 2007)

I hear that. The infrastructure doesn't seem to handle everyone having a signifcant role at the same time. The navy should be used to not being used for decades at a time though.


----------



## FredDaHead (19 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> How about having 2 crews for each ship......
> 
> Sort of like american SSBNs have "gold" and "blue" crew.......We could call ours "Red" and "white" crews



That wouldn't solve equipment maintenance and such; besides, unless we cut the number of deployable ships in half, we wouldn't have the crew to do that. It might save some money (running more maintenance on less ships vs less maintenance on more ships) but I doubt it would be the right thing to do.


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Mar 2007)

Be a good excuse to get rid of half the ships in the Navy....or at least, from a bean-counter's perspective it would be.

Not to mention that we don't have enough crews to man the ships we have now, let alone getting two crews per ship...I can just see the Crit manning messages....

NS


----------



## aesop081 (19 Mar 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> That wouldn't solve equipment maintenance and such; besides, unless we cut the number of deployable ships in half, we wouldn't have the crew to do that. It might save some money (running more maintenance on less ships vs less maintenance on more ships) but I doubt it would be the right thing to do.



I was responding to someone's concerns about PERS TEMPO if we went down to 8 FFHs or less.........


----------

