# Whats your prediction for General Hillier's Big Honking Ship (BHS)



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

I know it will be awhile (if ever) we get it but what is your thought.

Personally I am leaning towards the Enforcer derivative, cheaper and reliable.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I know it will be awhile (if ever) we get it but what is your thought.



What's the Enforcer derivative ex dragoon? Do you have a website link or can you describe it? And what about the Ocean one? I'm interested cause IMO I think this is going to go ahead

I have a buddy who works on this kinda stuff that says they are seriously looking at San Antonio...in fact a delegation went down to where they are building them (not sure where that is) and there are some talks on going.

I think Hillier is going to try and push ahead with it pretty quick. My buddy also said that when they get them they will de-commission the 280s and put the crews on the BHS....or at least that is one proposal. Cause I asked him where they thought we'd get the crews?  I guess they could do all the Command and Control stuff from the San Antonio or it's equivalent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

HMS Ocean is the RNs newest helicopter carrier.

The problem with the San Antonios is they are very much man power intensive and if we give up the 280s we lose an important capbility in Area Air Defence.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2006)

That may bring up the numbers of Recruits who want to go Navy and get into the new Boats.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2006)

Beat me to it Ex-Dragoon.  Here are some other links to the Enforcer and variants

http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL3301.html
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/galicia/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/

Here are some of the other runners that have been mentioned

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/bpe.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm

And at the other end of the spectrum, the non-military option - or floating warehouses

http://rusi.4t2depot.com/downloads/pub_rds/Carmel.pdf
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_04_20.php
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1290/printArticle.html
http://www.americanshipper.com/paid/MAY01/how_much_bigger.asp

The ones in the middle are warships and have massive crew requirements
The ones at the bottom the civilian vessels with minimal crew requirements
The Enforcers can put to sea as transports with minimal crews - as in the case of the Brit LSD(A)s or as amphibs with a sea crew of about 60, a systems crew of about another 60 plus helidets plus up to 600 troops.

Off hand I would be inclined to think that the Enforcer is a good possibility.  It would certainly make a good fit with a Schelde based design for the JSSs.

On the other hand - Maersk built warehouses from St. John's, Schelde designed JSSs fitted out at Davie and Kvaerner-Aker Ice-breakers at Washington Marine would spread the wealth.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Mar 2006)

Thanks for the links Kirkhill.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2006)

De Nada.


----------



## cobbler (10 Mar 2006)

Has the General or any of the big wigs set out specific or desired requirments yet?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Mar 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That may bring up the numbers of Recruits who want to go Navy and get into the new Boats.



Just to be a snobby Navy guy but boats are little things that you row or a submarine...we're talking ships here...lol  > Couldn't help myself as my old Coxn from training days used to drum that into us.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Beat me to it Ex-Dragoon.  Here are some other links to the Enforcer and variants
> 
> http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL3301.html
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
> ...



Nice links thanks...that'll provide me with hours of surfing time...lol

Area Air Defense a problem with San Antonio? Here's what it has or is capable of
"Two Mark 31 Mod 0 launchers are capable of launching the fire-and-forget Raytheon Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). The RAM (RIM 116) surface-to-air missile has dual-mode radio frequency/infra-red guidance and is designed to engage anti-ship missiles. It has a range of 8km. Space and weight provision has been made for the future fitting of a vertical launcher for the Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) if required."

Not my part ship but what do we require and couldn't we fit anything we want onto the ship?

They will definately have to tie ships up if they get these in order to crew a new ship...we haven't got enough people now. If we get a new role with BHS we'll have to get our crews from somewhere.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

I am referring to medium and long range surface to air missiles able to engage aircraft and missiles from 40 to 100+ nautical miles vice point defence missiles such as the RAM which are only used for local(your own ship) air defence. ESSM pushes the envelope out to around 20 nm IIRC but that does not really help if your part of a TF. Without our own area defence capability our allies are forced to task one more asset to protect our assets, neither of us want that.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am referring to medium and long range surface to air missiles able to engage aircraft and missiles from 40 to 100+ nautical miles vice point defence missiles such as the RAM which are only used for local(your own ship) air defence. ESSM pushes the envelope out to around 20 nm IIRC but that does not really help if your part of a TF. Without our own area defence capability our allies are forced to task one more asset to protect our assets, neither of us want that.



Could we add it though? If we bought that one? or any other one?
Seems to me that a domestic design will take way too long......Frigates were on the drawing boards in 77 when i joined and started being delivered in early 90s....can't afford that kinda time I don't think.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

> Could we add it though? If we bought that one? or any other one?
> Seems to me that a domestic design will take way too long......Frigates were on the drawing boards in 77 when i joined and started being delivered in early 90s....can't afford that kinda time I don't think.



If you put the Area AD capability on the BHH, I think that this gets us firmly into the territory of having all of our eggs in one basket.  Also, the BHH may have to chose between hanging around a certain geographic point to support the forces ashore and manoeuvering up threat to deal with bad guys.

You also have to go through the design exercise of making magazine space for a useful load of missiles as well as Air Search and Fire Control Radars.

I personally think that we are headed in the right direction with putting the Comd and Control function on the BHH and then designing and building the Common Future Surface Combatant to replace the 280s and the frigates.  Hopefully, some of them will be optimised for Air Defence and the rest ASW and Surface warfare.  Lets start cutting steel!


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

I understand we have manning problems (vis HMCS Huron) but is that entirely insurmountable?

One of the reasons, I am guessing, that the Navy has been so reluctant to buy this type of vessel in the past is that the very nature of it is that it is not going to be used (maybe that should be sailed) much.  It is likely to be either at dock in Canada or at some foreign station of on station in an active theatre.  Most of its life it is going to be dead in the water.  Does that not make it a possible Naval Reserve tasking?

Or how about the declining "need" for manning making it possible to sail a floating warehouse with a crew of 30 or so?  Is it that difficult to scare up 60 more sailors?  Or even 250 sailors if something like the Galicia/Rotterdams were bought?  Sailors on such ships are likely to get less sea-duty than patrol vessels like the CPFs and the DDHs.   Even their replacement vessels are likely to be built with lower manning levels in mind which in turn frees up sailor PYs.  Similarly the JSSs are supposed to have fewer bodies than the AORs (although their will be 3 apparently rather than 2 - on the other hand buying transports (and ice-breakers) may reduce the transport need from the JSS in turn reducing complexity, cost and need for personnel).

Finally there is always the possibility of a politician keeping a promise and/or the recruiting and training process being fixed....though perhaps you would be better counting working with smaller crews and reservists.


----------



## Gino (10 Mar 2006)

I hate to be a pessimist, but the day we commission an amphibious ship (aka BHS), I'll eat my hat.  I think that when the politicians see the final price tag, there'll much choking and gagging and things will grind to a rapid halt.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

Gino:  

Frankly that is why I don't think the amphibious concept is necessarily the right concept and why I keep bringing up "floating warehouses" as in the Maritime Pre-positioning Fleet.  Where San Antonios cost in excess of one Billion dollars, transports like the Bay Class version of the Enforcers and even Very Large Ships like the Tamesis Ro-Ros or the Maersk S Class containers can be had for something on the order of 100 to 200 MCAD each and, as noted, can be sailed by very small crews.  The money necessary to defend those vessels is better spent on refurbishing/replacing the fleet of CPFs/DDHs and tasking them to escort duties when the situation warrants - possibly along with bolt-on containerized defences that could be manned by reservists.  The containerization would allow them to keep them with them on shore for training and maintenance.

Instead of the RCA supplying a dozen troops with shoulder launched Blowpipes the Naval Reserve could supply a dozen bodies with two containers of Vertically Launched missiles, a Radar container and a C&C container,  maybe a couple of Phalanx CIWS thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Don't forget Kirkhill in order for us to deploy we must cross some of the most treacherous waters in the world and I don't think your floating warehouse would cut it.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon:

Isn't that what you guys in your Frigates, Subs, Auroras and SeaKing/Cyclones are there for?  To safely deliver unarmed vessels to port?

And yes, I am yanking your chain.

Edit: but maybe there is compromise somewhere between the Maersk/Tamesis "Warehouse" and the Billion dollar amphibs like the San Antonios.  A compromise something more like your Enforcers or even a little more upscale like the Ocean, the BPE or the Mistrals.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill,

I admire your "thinking out of the boxness" (how is that for coining a phrase?  ), but I'm not convinced that your "bolt on" weapons and sensors would work.  Over 5 years sailing, I watched alot of CSE types work pretty hard (not always successfully) to keep fitted weapons serviceable and calibrated.  I have also watched the Combat types work hard (not always successfully) to undersatnd how the weapons are to be best used.  I'm not sure I want to go to war AGAIN on a ship that has it's weapons come out of a box and be installed in a mad panic before the deployment- did it, got the tee-shirt.  You'll have to colour me sceptical.

Cheers,


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

> but I'm not convinced that your "bolt on" weapons and sensors would work.



That makes two of us SKT - probably at least three with Ex-Dragoon.  But it is an option that is no doubt on the table having been discussed in the past in light of the Falklands experience.  There were a number of proposals floated (pardon the expression) at that time for converting civilian vessels with containers to do everything up to and including launching Harriers.  May as well keep the discussion parameters as broad as possible here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Interesting to see that quite a few have voted for a domestic design.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

I wonder if they would be satisfied with with a domestic build or even a domestically spec'd and fitted version of a foreign build vessel.  Such a solution would still be possible with an Enforcer design. 

The Dutch built Rotterdam in Holland.  The Spanish built their versions in Spain.  The Dutch built Jan van der Wijk in Bulgaria (IIRC) and fitted her out in Holland.  The Brits simplified the design and built them at competing yards in England and Scotland.  In every case specs, design, build and fitting out were individualized and split up.


----------



## FSTO (10 Mar 2006)

With the Schelde Enforcer we could have it built in Europe and outfitted here, or purchase the building rights and build in Canada. Be advised that we would likely be maxed out with JSS, Icebreakers and the Frigate Refit. I really don't think we have the capacity to build all of these ships at once.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

> Quote
> but I'm not convinced that your "bolt on" weapons and sensors would work.
> 
> That makes two of us SKT - probably at least three with Ex-Dragoon.



Although - thinking about it a bit more - isn't that essentially what an Air Defence Battery does?  As I understand the way that the airfield defence batteries of 4ADR worked they drove their Skyguard radar, 35mm guns and ADATS onto an airfield along with their CPs and Kitchens then "bolted" them down Edit: and wired them in (the ADATS at least can be netted by hardwire so that one gunner can fire all netted missiles IIRC.  I'll try and find the reference.)  for the duration.  Perhaps an air defence gunner can jump in here.  Naval gunners wouldn't have to worry about maintaining tracks, engines, generators or finding the galley.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

Remeber though for the most part Air Defence Gunners are dealing with solid ground, could they do the same in Sea state 2 and above?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

How long does it take a Naval Reservist to find their sea legs?  And Sea State 2 in a BHS (emphasis on BIG) is that likely to be an issue?  This landlubber slept quite peacefully in a SeaState 5 on a 200m ship (and regretted being born on a 40m fishing boat in SeaState 3).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

For a naval reservists not long but there are always exceptions to every rule. With anything though it depends on climatizing to the new enviroment, we have had army types embarked before and they were sea sick at when it was like glass. Still would prefer a fitted system then calling up ye olde air defence battery and ask for a manpad detachment embarked.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

I too appreciate that a permanently fitted system would be a better option - but for sake of argument let's suppose that it was less capital cost to go with a containerized system (no guarantee agreed).  Or that it cost less from a maintenance and training position (maybee, maybe not).  Or that it allowed Naval Reservists in Calgary or Winnipeg an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to manning a vessel that would spend most of its life at dockside without having to wait for opportunities to go to Victoria or Halifax to train?

I am not thinking that the guys on green or light blue would be driving up to the dock in their MMEVs/ADATS.  More that you would have blue-suiters dedicated to the AirDefence role just as you apparently have for the Mine Clearance role.

Besides - if these systems are containerized perhaps they could be slung ashore to supply close range air defence at places like Kandahar.


----------



## darmil (10 Mar 2006)

That would cool if we could build it in Canada.I would get on that project if it was to be built here.I'm a journeyman welder with the boilermakers union. ;D


----------



## cobbler (10 Mar 2006)

> Sailors on such ships are likely to get less sea-duty than patrol vessels like the CPFs and the DDHs.



Are you kidding? Amphibs are amongst the hardest working ships in any navy!

The MEO's really earn there money keeping those things in working order.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

> As I understand the way that the airfield defence batteries of 4ADR worked they drove their Skyguard radar, 35mm guns and ADATS onto an airfield



Not surprisingly, that was not without it's difficulties as well.  When I was at the school in Gagetown, we would frequently deploy "perfectly serviceable" ADATS or Guns/skyguard into the field, only to find it didn't work.  My opinion?  High tech gear doesn't like to sit around on shelves- it likes to be run.  And the salt water environment is a whole lot less forgiving than land is.

I also expect that, Canada being Canada, if we bought a box of weapons and sensors to be fitted as required, it would sit in a warehouse somewhere, get neglected and become obsolete within a few years time.  No one would take serious ownership of it, no tactical development would take place.  At least if the weapons are onboard all of the time, once in a while the Captain has to take the ship out and sign off his CRRs (combat readiness requirements).

Out of sight, out of mind...

Cheers!


----------



## Navy_Blue (10 Mar 2006)

Lets actually get keels down for the JSS then we can talk BHS. Would be nice to start mid lifes on CPF's someday too.  Not till 2010 for the first two to start.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2006)

We might as well talk BHS as its a key part of General Hillier's plan for the CF.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Mar 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Lets actually get keels down for the JSS then we can talk BHS. Would be nice to start mid lifes on CPF's someday too.  Not till 2010 for the first two to start.



But JSS is progressing. I think last time I looked at the PMO site they had the paper out of specifications....so it's rolling along.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not surprisingly, that was not without it's difficulties as well.  When I was at the school in Gagetown, we would frequently deploy "perfectly serviceable" ADATS or Guns/skyguard into the field, only to find it didn't work.  My opinion?  High tech gear doesn't like to sit around on shelves- it likes to be run.  And the salt water environment is a whole lot less forgiving than land is.
> 
> I also expect that, Canada being Canada, if we bought a box of weapons and sensors to be fitted as required, it would sit in a warehouse somewhere, get neglected and become obsolete within a few years time.  No one would take serious ownership of it, no tactical development would take place.  At least if the weapons are onboard all of the time, once in a while the Captain has to take the ship out and sign off his CRRs (combat readiness requirements).
> 
> ...



Oh well....there's more than one sheet of paper for the drawing board.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

Maybe we need to shop around for something used while we are waiting for a made in Canada design.
This is what we did while waiting for the MCDVs....remember the Port Moresby and the other one...can't remember the names but they were stopgaps till we got the new class.

I wonder if there are any large ROROs out there that could serve as a platform to do the job while we get our BHS designed and built. Or maybe another navy (USN) has something suitable that they can't man or need right now that we could take over.

Having said that....we gotta be careful we don't get into another debacle like the "used sub" one.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Mar 2006)

I think we'll pick up one of the older Whidbey LPD's to build skills, then perhaps buy something new or fairly new. Whatever it is, I would be very surprised if the ship had a carrier style design like Ocean. It will also have to be very inexpensive, and highly disposable.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2006)

I would hope we go strictly to the Enforce or other so in case the government got cold feet we would have something in place and not stuck with old junk.


----------



## Long in the tooth (11 Mar 2006)

Originally the Navy requested two replacements for the Provider/Protecteur/Preserver and two troop landing veh (smaller versions of the Iwo Jima).  Our wise politicians immediately tried to combine the two, much as they would a strategic bomber and submarine.

I have no confidence in actually receiving ANY new kit.  The government will have us "plan to plan" until I'm long dead.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I think we'll pick up one of the older Whidbey LPD's to build skills, then perhaps buy something new or fairly new. Whatever it is, I would be very surprised if the ship had a carrier style design like Ocean. It will also have to be very inexpensive, and highly disposable.



Here's a pretty cool link on Whidbeys and other amphibious ships
http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/amphibs/default.htm

I think this is the right way to go myself....why doesn't the Navy listen to me....lol
Apparently the hovercraft LCACs are not a consideration for us.
They came in pretty handy in Op Unison though I understand....40 minute transit to shore vice 2 hours on the LCs. Had some buddies that went with our ships that told me that.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2006)

Yes but the JSS is becoming more of an AOR with some sea lift cability and the BHS will lift the troops and their stuff that go bang to whereever needed. Its a win-win all around, if it gets off the ground.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yes but the JSS is becoming more of an AOR with some sea lift cability and the BHS will lift the troops and their stuff that go bang to whereever needed. Its a win-win all around, if it gets off the ground.



BHS fits too with the Joint Operations idea....all three elements embarked together.....Navy to drive the ship and get the Army ashore along with Air Force....perfect fit to showcase Hillier's plan....I think he'll push ahead with it and we'll get it before the JSS.....JSS will be an AOR replacement at the end of the day I bet.


----------



## FSTO (12 Mar 2006)

This November about 350 troops are going down to Camp Lejune to conduct some amphib training with the Marines. This is the first actual phyisical training that the CF has done after about a year of feverish staff work, tours and briefings. It is safe to say that nothing (note the comment about the LCAC above) is being left out, including a through deck design.


----------



## M Feetham (12 Mar 2006)

A couple of things to remember here is that one, if you are going to keep any type of AAW capability you have to be maneuverable, a big honking RO-RO, or supply vessel is about as maneuverable as a pregnant yak. Secondly if they do away with the 280's before they get the JSS in place then they lose C & C  platforms. Yes they can transfer some of those tasks to the CPF but they were never designed with C&C in mind. Also they could possibley try to refit the CPF for SM2 for that "Reach out and touch you capability" but RAM type missiles just don't have the range. Look it up in Janes. Now if you had the CPF Air radar with 280 fire power you could be looking at something there. Just my thoughts. If you have something to add please do.
Ciao Marc


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> A couple of things to remember here is that one, if you are going to keep any type of AAW capability you have to be maneuverable, a big honking RO-RO, or supply vessel is about as maneuverable as a pregnant yak. Secondly if they do away with the 280's before they get the JSS in place then they lose C & C  platforms. Yes they can transfer some of those tasks to the CPF but they were never designed with C&C in mind. Also they could possibley try to refit the CPF for SM2 for that "Reach out and touch you capability" but RAM type missiles just don't have the range. Look it up in Janes. Now if you had the CPF Air radar with 280 fire power you could be looking at something there. Just my thoughts. If you have something to add please do.
> Ciao Marc



Agreed Marc now if we can pnly get these people on here who believe we do not need an AAD capability then we would be talking. Seems to be my ongoing crusade.


----------

