# New ships (cheap)



## mad dog 2020

Just announced the British Forces are doing major cuts> MAJOR.......... 7000 army 5000 navy 5000 airforce.
For sale the Ark Royal
Who needs a JSS.....
Mr Cameron will also order the flagship HMS Ark Royal - one of the Navy's two aircraft carriers - to be decommissioned or scrapped if a buyer cannot be found for her

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3186267/Royal-Navy-hit-by-government-cutbacks-including-no-jets-for-its-aircraft-carriers-for-next-decade.html#ixzz12rHaIZ8W
I don't think we will be getting new jets.


----------



## aesop081

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> I don't think we will be getting new jets.



You know that the UK is ,like, a whole different country right ?


----------



## mad dog 2020

Yes I do know, but Sorry we are in a global recession and we have money issues here too.  Don't be surprised if we have a similar train of thought.  Especially when we pull out of Afghanistan. 
jets are important and if anything the order will be trimmed.


----------



## jewalsh

Don't forget we bought subs (Victoria class) from the Brits and that was a major failure!!!


----------



## 30 for 30

They're getting rid of a Bay Class as well, which would be a great LPD option for us at the right price. Used by the Dutch and Spanish as well as the Rotterdam/Galicia Class. Crew of just 60 plus space for 350 troops and 32 tanks/armoured beasts. 1 LCU carried. Now that we're going for 2 basic oilers, perhaps such a procurement could work seeing as they are still talking about a 2.6 billion budget.


----------



## OldSolduer

I thought it said new sheep....and I was looking for a Highlander to jump out of the woodwork.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Senor Mono said:
			
		

> They're getting rid of a Bay Class as well, which would be a great LPD option for us at the right price. Used by the Dutch and Spanish as well as the Rotterdam/Galicia Class. Crew of just 60 plus space for 350 troops and 32 tanks/armoured beasts. 1 LCU carried. Now that we're going for 2 basic oilers, perhaps such a procurement could work seeing as they are still talking about a 2.6 billion budget.



When was it announced we are getting 2 basic oilers? I guess the CMS missed that memo as well as the last brief we had from Commander Marlant. Both stated we had to reevaluate the options but were still commit ed to 3....



> Don't forget we bought subs (Victoria class) from the Brits and that was a major failure!!!


Really....how so? Have you spoken to anyone in our submarine community regarding what they think?


----------



## xena

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I thought it said new sheep....and I was looking for a Highlander to jump out of the woodwork.....


...What?  Where's the sheep?...

Dang it...  been had again...

At least being a highlander is better than being, of all things, a Welshman.  <shudder>   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The subs are doing great work, Thank you. They just needed more upgrading and refitting because they were left alongside too long.

As for the others: I do not want Ark Royal, she is getting too old to be of use much longer.

I do like the Bay class however, and they are new enough to have lots of life left in them. But please: get them right away -asap after they cease to be operated by the British.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I don't think the boats can be called a major failure, although I don't think they could be called a major success either. They had a lot of design and construction problems, along with spares issues. The layup didn't help but wasn't a significant factor.

They should be working as well as they're realistically likely to get within the next couple of years.


----------



## The_Unabooboo

The bay class would be a great stop gap solution to the support ship issue.  While the bean counters are working out the details we could use one or two for replenishment, disaster relief, getting our tanks back home from a
Afghanistan, and as oilers.  These LSD have enormous storage tanks for fuel(normally for helicopters and land vehicles) that can be converted for ships.  And when the new support ships are done they can still be used as LSDs.  
A good way to enforce northern sovereignty might be to deploy a battalion of infantry in the north every once and a while for some exercises.  These are just the right kind of ships to do it.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Don't forget we bought subs (Victoria class) from the Brits and that was a major failure!!!


The Victoria Class were a major failure?  1 pound each seems pricey to you?


----------



## aesop081

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> 1 pound each seems pricey to you?



There was more to it than that.


----------



## vonGarvin

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The Victoria Class were a major failure?  1 pound each seems pricey to you?


And worth every penny, apparently!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The_Unabooboo said:
			
		

> The bay class would be a great stop gap solution to the support ship issue.  While the bean counters are working out the details we could use one or two for replenishment, disaster relief, getting our tanks back home from a
> Afghanistan, and as oilers.  These LSD have enormous storage tanks for fuel(normally for helicopters and land vehicles) that can be converted for ships.  And when the new support ships are done they can still be used as LSDs.
> A good way to enforce northern sovereignty might be to deploy a battalion of infantry in the north every once and a while for some exercises.  These are just the right kind of ships to do it.



You do know we get other consumables from our AORs besides fuel right? What about food....ammo.....spare parts?


----------



## aesop081

The_Unabooboo said:
			
		

> A good way to enforce northern sovereignty might be to deploy a battalion of infantry in the north every once and a while for some exercises.  These are just the right kind of ships to do it.



We already do periodic exercises in the North. Getting troops to the north by sea is too slow How do you get troops from Petawawa up there ? You have to send them to a port...load them on ships and then sail north. That takes alot of time. Getting them there by air is not. 

The best way to maintain presence in the north is still by air (as is done now by 440 Sqn and the LRP Sqns) with a small presence on the ground ( like the Canadian Rangers). We can continue to demonstrate our ability to conduct operations there through exercises. If an emergency arises, troops can be flown in to respond much faster than by sea.

The main threat in the north is not from a ground invasion. A battalion of infantry is a poor response.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oh, man oh man.  I am drooling at the thought of getting our mitts on a Bay class or two.  They would be a great asset to the fleet and would do many of the  things I was speaking of in another thread.  But who are we kidding, it would not fly to make a stab at acquisition.  Shame.


----------



## canada94

if the Bay Class ships where to be allocated, how much would it cost to maintain them? Would they serve a purpose? Unless they are affordable and would serve a sufficient purpose I don't think they should be considered, but as a maritimer I would like to see Canada Beef up its Maritime fleet. Wouldn't building our own ships, make jobs? I don't see why we don't do that. Then again something I don't totally understand just me ranting. 

Mike


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

canada94 said:
			
		

> if the Bay Class ships where to be allocated, how much would it cost to maintain them? Would they serve a purpose? Unless they are affordable and would serve a sufficient purpose I don't think they should be considered, but as a maritimer I would like to see Canada Beef up its Maritime fleet. Wouldn't building our own ships, make jobs? I don't see why we don't do that. Then again something I don't totally understand just me ranting.
> 
> Mike



Search and read shipbuilding has been discussed time and time again.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## canada94

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Search and read shipbuilding has been discussed time and time again.
> 
> Milnet.Ca Staff



Will do, Thanks.

Mike


----------



## Kirkhill

canada94 said:
			
		

> if the Bay Class ships where to be allocated, how much would it cost to maintain them? Would they serve a purpose? Unless they are affordable and would serve a sufficient purpose I don't think they should be considered, but as a maritimer I would like to see Canada Beef up its Maritime fleet. Wouldn't building our own ships, make jobs? I don't see why we don't do that. Then again something I don't totally understand just me ranting.
> 
> Mike



The cost of maintaining and operating a Brit built ship is not going to differ significantly than an equivalent Canadian built ship.  As to the actual operating cost an LSDA crew of 59 is equivalent in size to two MCDV crews of 31.  And I believe better value for money.

As pointed out above we have uses for the ship right now.

But there are other uses.  See this article about the Dutch Johan de Witt and her AFOBs (1 LCU and a pair of LCVPs in the Gulf of Aden).

In fact I think that that is one of the reasons that bot the RN and the RNlN are experimenting with deploying CB-90s from the LCVP davits on the Johan de Witt and Brit landing ships. See here.

An opportunity to experiment with the Mother ship concept as well as supplying a FRP for Chinooks, Cyclones and Cormorants and temporary accomodations for up to 450 soldiers, saiors, airmen, medics, Mounties, diplomats or NGOs or for that matter allies or Refugees.


----------



## Stoker

Looking at the propulsion plant very similar to whats on a MCDV only on a larger scale. It could easily be manned by reservists and have a excellent training capacity as well to increase levels of force generation.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The cost of maintaining and operating a Brit built ship is not going to differ significantly than an equivalent Canadian built ship.



How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.



> As to the actual operating cost an LSDA crew of 59 is equivalent in size to two MCDV crews of 31.



TThat crew figure is for RFA. You'd need a much larger crew for naval operations unless you crewed it with the same outfit (CFNAS?) that mans the Glen tugs etc. It also doesn't cover people required to man the LCU's flight deck etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CB 90's would make an interesting patrol boat to be stationed up North and used in the open water seasons. Could be manned by naval reservists, would take sometime to establish, but would also be useful for SAR duties. Also the design could be bought under licence and built here easily.
The Polar 8 was envisioned to carry a SRN5 or SRN6 hovercraft on Davits. We do use a small landing craft on davits for some buoytenders, but nothing the size of the CB90.


----------



## Kirkhill

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.



I see your point and That Particular ship will cost more to operate than a similar ship spec'd to Canadian standards and built to our spec.  But over all I can't see that a Brit built ship would cost  us more to operate than any other ship bought "off the rack".

In the longer term it would be right to build Canadian ships to Canadian specs for Canadian needs but this is a one off opportunity.

Personally I think it is an interesting opportunity that seems to tick a lot of the boxes discussed here in the Great BHS/JSS/AOR/Candadian Marine debate.  And if the price is right, maybe even a long term lease from the Brits, it seems to me it would be a pity to miss the chance.



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That crew figure is for RFA. You'd need a much larger crew for naval operations unless you crewed it with the same outfit (CFNAS?) that mans the Glen tugs etc. It also doesn't cover people required to man the LCU's flight deck etc.



That is correct. You would have get the Air Force to put on board a heli det and an Air Movements Det.  You might even want to put some army personnel on board as well as naval types.  That seems to be the way the Brits operate those vessels.  The have some 75 spare spaces allocated for those types of augmentees over and above the 350 troop spaces (700 on overload). They are not so much naval vessels as floating warehouses that operate in sheltered, uncontested waters.

That might not be where we want to end up but wouldn't it be a good place to start?

But could you clarify something for me?  Why does the navey need more watchkeepers to man a vessel than the RFA?  Assuming, of course, as noted previously, we are talking about a logistical craft rather than a fighting vessel.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.



Question I've always been curious about since I heard that the Navy was removing the installed Harpoon capacity in the Victorias:  "What is it about standardization, even between different classes of vessels, that appears to warrant such massive expenditures?"  If as an example there are two different radars or engines (as opposed to incompatible communications gear) on different classes of vessels, what's the big deal?  

If you look at a standard mechanic, they have to be able to diagnose and repair 100's of different types of cars, so why is is that the military gets such flutters abount non-standardization of gear on different classes of vessels?

Thanks in advance drunknsubmrnr....your knowledgable contributions to this forum are always appreciated.


----------



## dapaterson

Different equipment = more spares to acquire and store.  Orphan fleets are a pain to sustain, and can cost more (lifecycle) than moving to a single standard.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dataperson is right ... and wrong.

It depends on what item we are talking about.

If two ships have different radars, say an SPS 49 on one and an EMPAR on the other one, then you need two sets of spare parts and likely to train your techs on both, so its an extra expense.

However, there are many things (and it would likely include most of the large stuff) that we do not have "spare" for. if they break or when long refits come around and they need servicing, the dockyard basically manufactures the parts. And fixing those things even though different from one ship to another would often involve "standardized" supplies. For example, whether my main engines are Pratt & Withney or Rolls Royce turbines, the piping for the lube oil is likely the same standard piping. So it is no inconvenience to store replacement piping for either 'cause its the same (please people don' t jump on me, this is just a quick example). 

In the end, from a supply point of view, it may be a wash. I do not know: I have heard Dataperson's argument a lot in my career, but have never seen any research/study that would ultimately prove it or disprove it.

A much better reason (IMHO) to Standardize is actually simplification of training and the advantages of greater mastery of equipment's capacities that come with it. Think Royal Navy, for instance: A young seaman may serve his first tour on a Type 23 frigate, go on course ashore and come back to serve on a Type 45 Destroyer, go on a long course ashore, and go back to sea ... on an Invincible class carrier! Every time, he has to not only get back in the "swing of things" - fairly easy - but learn his way around a completely new ship with different equipment and layout - that is difficult and regardless of level, puts him behind the eight ball compared to his peers who already know that type of ship. When you have standardized ships type or even just equipment, then its that much easier to get back to it every time, and in every posting you increase your mastery of the equipment instead of learning anew. 

However, there will always be exception to standardization. If you are going to have a fleet of frigates but want to supply them, you obviously will have to take on a supply ship that will be different by necessity, same if you want a carrier, or an amphibious ship, etc.

In the present case of this thread, however, before using the ghost of standardization to refuse to act, two very real questions need to be answered:

1- Will acquiring this ship truly increase my operational capability? and,

2- Does the very low costs of acquisition provides a sufficient counterweight to the added financial burden of maintenance and operation of a non standard piece of equipment?

There have been mention above of some types available: let me square some off: 

a) Invincible - refit or not - is same class and older than Ark Royal. They both require a naval crew of 1000 (roughly) and are approaching 30 years old. So my vote would be no on both.

b) HMS Ocean, firstly is not a "class" but a single ship. She is an amphibious ship that requires a crew the size of an IRO's but she would give a greater flexibility and capacity than the Bay class LHD(A). She is about 15 years old, with a likely lifespan of 40, so if available at low cost, and the Navy Brass was willing to retire another of the IRO, I would think its a good acquisition.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The Harpoon capability removal from the Victoria's went a bit beyond "normal" standardisation. The RN has it's own weapon and tube patterns that are pretty much incompatible with the USN patterns that we use. For example, even though the tubes are the same size, the weapon umbilical cable attachments are in different places and use different command system signals. That pretty much left us with the choice of either retaining the RN command systems and spending hundreds of millions on buying new weapons, or ripping out their command systems and installing our old SOUP systems from the Oberons to work with our old torpedoes. RUMINT at the time was that the senior submariners picked to retain the RN command systems and buy new weapons, but the government said no. That was one of the prime drivers behind why the boats haven't operated much over the last 10 years and why they're unlikely to ever be combat-capable.

Anyway, there's an enormous amount of effort and money that goes into supporting non-standard systems, especially in spares procurement and training. You need extra warehouse space, extra school space, extra instructors, extra people in Ottawa to look after the system lifecycle etc. It ends up being a lot of money for very little return on only one platform.

FWIW, HMS Ocean is rumoured to be pretty much done. She was built to commercial standards in a yard that was going bankrupt and has been run very hard since then. The Bay will probably be in much better shape, but "Canadianisation" may be a bit brutal. However, apparently the accomodations are built to RFA standards and are somewhat...palatial. Maybe that's why they can run with a smaller crew, but I'd say it's more like not needing a redundant CSE watch, full lookouts, Ops room manning, and supervisors for all of those.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if we could talk the Brits into a Bare Bones lease on the Bay and pay them to maintain the hull and running gear?

Would there be any merit in that?  It might have to be a long term lease to make it palatable to the Brits.  But from our standpoint it would be added capability and a learning opportunity before committing to our own BHS (if ever acquired).


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> I wonder if we could talk the Brits into a Bare Bones lease on the Bay and pay them to maintain the hull and running gear?



It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.


----------



## Kirkhill

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.



And I suppose there is the continuing tradition of Lucas Electrics.....I wonder why, in a rain soaked, maritime nation the Brits never came to terms with "insulation"?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And I suppose there is the continuing tradition of Lucas Electrics.....I wonder why, in a rain soaked, maritime nation the Brits never came to terms with "insulation"?



One would have widely assumed that they would be the world leaders in wipers, central heating, but alas tis not to be. You knew that Lucas made vacuums? it was their only product that didn't suck!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.



Don't want to do that.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> You knew that Lucas made vacuums? it was their only product that didn't suck!



Now that is hilarious!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Now available on your favourite online auction site:

HMS Ark Royal (R07); Illustrious Class Aircraft Carrier



> Cash on collection please


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dang they got their sub off, we could have offered cash as is, where is.


----------



## brihard

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.



I hate to sound like an economist, but this sounds a lot like 'opportunity cost'. Whatever portion of our most assuredly finite defense budget we might think to spend on such an acquisition/lease, what other spending will that entail giving up?

Major capital acquisitions will be hard to justify to the taxpayer as we quit Afghanistan. The F-35s have already caused quite a flap. Assuming that we'll be pressed for a while in terms of getting new kit, would such a vessel truly fit our priorities enough that it would justify giving up other major pieces of kit we would have to forsake in order to fit this within our budget?

Looked at another way, if the cost of acquiring such a vessel plus maintenance contracts were to be spent elsewhere, what else could we get for that amount, and would it better serve national defense priorities?


----------



## Kirkhill

A few weeks/months ago Oldgateboatdriver produced a Dream Navy predicated on the same number of sailors/seamen/mariners as are currently engaged crewing our existing fleet.  He used an upper limit of 4400 souls including MCDV crews drawn from the reserves.  That generated a 38 ship fleet capable of doing everything we do now and support an expeditionary lift in excess of 4400 troops with vehicles, boats and helicopters.

If we take a look at the current CPFs and consider their capabilities we find that the capabilities broadly conform to what is expected of any General Purpose Combatant.  It has Sonar and Radar to sweep large areas to supply situational awareness.  It has an ability to launch and recover helicopters in heavy seas to be able to extend its area of influence broadly as well as refine the intelligence picture. It has an ability to launch missiles to engage a variety of targets at a variety of ranges.   Those “missiles” broadly speaking, include torpedoes.  It has a variety of guns ranging upwards from 12.7 mm for close in defence, through anti-aircraft weapons to a weapon designed to engage larger surface targets at extended range.  
The CPF is not unique.  Many other vessels supply the same capabilities.  Not all vessels supply the same quality of capability – and I will try to leave the discussion of crew quality out of the equation just now.  Suffice to say that I am sure that Canada’s crews are as good as anyone’s and better than most.

Where am I rambling to?

If we look at the CPF, based largely on 1970s and 1980s technology, it requires a complement of 225 to crew all the stations necessary to supply those capabilities on that 4750 tonne vessel.
If I follow OGBD’s lead on his Dream Navy and take a look at what might be possible when reviewing the options for the CSC to replace the CPF and the DDHs then I come to this list comparing manning requirements of vessels that I think might be suitable General Purpose candidates to replace the CPFs:

CPF Halifax 		225

F124 Sachsen 		230
F100-7Provinces	202
T45 Daring		190

T26 (Future)		150
F125 (Future)		105-120
Absalon/Huitfeldt	101
FREMM			108
Formidable		70 (Ships Crew with an additional Helidet of 15 for a total complement of 85)
Endurance 		65

Now by the time we get down to the Royal Singapore Navy's 3500 tonne Endurance the apples are starting to look distinctly like oranges.  It is a Frigate of a useful size but it is missing a useful missile capability.  On the other hand the French Formidable from which it evolved, with its 32 cell SAM launcher, 8 Harpoons, 6 Torpedoes, 76mm gun and 4 12.7s does seem to be at least in the same ball park as the CPF.  I am sure I will be corrected.

I am also sure that the discrepancies in manpower can be justified on many other grounds that I don’t understand.  However if the limiting factor in fleet development is manpower and the ability to recruit and pay for crew,  while at the same time maximizing both the number and size of platforms, there does seem a case to be made that we could, as OGBD pointed out, considerably increase our capabilities by better exploiting technology.

Even if we were to set a notional crew size of 75, or 1/3 of the crew of a CPF, couldn’t we crew two vessels for each one that we are crewing now and use the reduction in Person-Years to help pay for the extra hulls?

Additionally if more use were made of Reservists and Civilian Personnel to man vessels not engaged on standing tasks,  or not involved in high risk services to the fleet, could we not afford to procure more capabilities that way?

I believe I understand one of the counter-arguments that a large crew is necessary to keep a damaged ship afloat and in the fight.  

But doesn’t that argument tend to run in circles?  A bigger crew requires a bigger vessel which creates a bigger target that costs more money to defend.  It also represents a greater loss of live and money and capability if lost.  Additionally cramming a large number of people into a small space means that each individual is at greater risk in the event that the ship is hit in any given spot.

Conversely a larger vessel, with fewer crew, the numbers being made up with technology and electric motors, offers the crew less risk of being at the point of impact when the ship is hit.  The reduced crew means that fewer lives are put at risk.  The increased number of platforms means that a smaller portion of the fleet’s capabilities are lost if the ship is lost.  And a smaller crew means less time to evacuate the vessel.

Additionally, spare space for passengers and a greater variety of connectors, like larger helicopters, ships boats and LCVPS enhances flexibility when the need arises.

Does a large crew in cramped quarters really serve the fleet’s interests best?

Having gone through all of that meander – to get back to the point of this thread and “New Ships(Cheap)”.  

I would dearly like to see Canada pick up the spare Bay and possibly the Ocean but I don’t think either thing can be done until we free up manpower by downsizing the crews on the CPFs which means we have to wait until the CSCs are built.  For that reason I don’t see it being worthwhile to pick up the Ocean just now.  She is a combat vessel, as i understand it, designed to go into harms way.  She needs a regular Navy crew.  If we want to build OGBD’s dream fleet then it has to happen over time by commissioning CSCs as we pay off the CPFs and concurrently adding the additional platforms.  And that is going to take time.

Now, on the other hand, the Bay, a non-combatant logistics craft with a small crew and a useful capability that can be exploited immediately.  Couldn’t that be a worthwhile purchase to be crewed by a mix of reservists and civilians?

Ramble ends.


----------



## ringo

Buying a Bay from UK would be a good move IMO, the AOR/JSS program could then be scaled back to just a pair of basic AOR's of Canatria or Berlin class the Bay providing lift that basic AOR designs lack.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ringo said:
			
		

> Buying a Bay from UK would be a good move IMO, the AOR/JSS program could then be scaled back to just a pair of basic AOR's of Canatria or Berlin class the Bay providing lift that basic AOR designs lack.



All we are getting apparently is a pair. The Navy is really suffering with only a pair of AORs in service right now, so I am not a big fan of losing the 3rd AOR for a single Bay.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.


Canada owns the Victoria Class.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> All we are getting apparently is a pair. The Navy is really suffering with only a pair of AORs in service right now, so I am not a big fan of losing the 3rd AOR for a single Bay.



If that is the choice, I agree.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Aussies looking at Bay Class?

RAN to acquire ex-RN Bay Class LSD?
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/ran-to-acquire-ex-rn-bay-class-lsd



> Rumours abound that the RAN may be acquiring an ex-RN Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD) as a result of the UK MoD defence cutbacks.
> 
> The specifications for JP2048 Phase 4C as stated in the White Paper are: “a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel”.
> 
> “Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure.”
> 
> One blogger sees this as basically a description of the Bay class, and that there was the expectation that we’d buy the design off the drawing board and contract either BAE Systems or Scheldt to build one.
> 
> “One of the Bays becoming available suits us perfectly: it saves us a fair bit of cash (budget is $150-200 million, and I’d imagine we’ll get one of the Bays for ~$70-100 million, bear in mind the dollar is strong at the moment too), and it’s available right now...
> 
> Another observer has doubts as to whether the RAN would cancel an LHD for the sake of a cheap LSD – pointing out that the LSD probably won’t do the job of a dedicated fleet supply ship, which is what Success is due to be replaced with.
> 
> However, he adds that a Bay class ship would be a perfect replacement for Tobruk (which is what they were designed for in any case).
> 
> It appears that at one stage the RAN was looking at the Dutch Rotterdam class as a replacement for HMAS Success - guess what?
> 
> The Bay class is based on the self-same design.
> 
> Even more interesting – Spain uses the same design, built by Navantia as the Galicia class...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lucky buggers... wish it was us.

I read last night that HMS Invincible is going for scrap price @ 2M pounds sterling.  The RN's morale must really be on the rocks at the moment.   Poor bastards.


----------



## fire fytr

I agree completely with the acquisition of the Largs Bay, announced a few days ago, but what is more value is RFA Fort George.

At just 16 years old and just about to come out of a refit we could immediately deploy a very capable ship while trying to maintain at least one of the two current AORs until new replacements can be fielded by a Canadian yard as part of the NSPS.  Once the new AORs are in the water in 5 to 8 years the Fort George could be relegated to a relief AOR when the new boats are under going maintenance thus allowing two operational AORs.  

The vessel is a known player in NATO support and has a reduced crew capacity and enhanced AIR OPS capabilities  supporting as many as 5 Sea Kings.

If we can get only one ship this is the ship.  The Largs bay would be a nice to have but the Fort George is a must have in order for the fleet to be deployable.

This is my first post and I am not nor have I been a member of your service.  I do admit to having a very broad educationa in navavl matters and would appreciate the discussion of this.


----------



## STONEY

The RFA FORT GEORGE is a single hull tanker hull and thus in a couple years will be banned from most of the worlds ports for not meeting new standards coming into effect , which is one of the reasons the Brits are retiring it.


----------



## fire fytr

True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.

At the same age as the CPF fleet she could be phased out as the CPFs are as the new SHSC arrive.  This is a "gift" that is to good to be true.

It will likely come to pass that our navy like others will decrease in size over the course of the next few decades and we will be left with a smaller fleet needing only two AORs.  By the time this "new" fleet is in place we are looking at about 15 years or more.  Fort George would then be 30 plus years old and ready for paying off.


----------



## mad dog 2020

The RFA Fort George may be a single hull and so are our AORs.  But it would be an excellent fill in.  With all the disasters and relief required we would be able to send more aid.  The Haiti relief program could have used used an AOR with the expanded sick bay.  If the Fort George was modified it would cover the gap till 201????????.....

For example:
" In March 2000, the ship was equipped with five Westland Sea King helicopters and sent to Mozambique to help with disaster relief work following devastating floods. In May she accompanied HMS Illustrious to Sierra Leone to support British operations to restore stability to that country. Late in the year, during a deployment in the Mediterranean, the ship helped passengers of the Greek ferry Express Samina which had run aground and sunk during a storm on 26 September"

We have had Katrina, Haiti and even Igor in Nfld.
We could have this vessel in months not years.  You snooze you lose.
I am a retired army type so help me out here, maybe I am way off base.


----------



## fire fytr

From a manning perspective, Naval-technology notes on the Protecteur Class, a crew of 365 per vessel.  Fort George requires a crew of 134 plus the embarked AIR DET.  This is half of the crew requirement at a time when the operations costs of running a ship of this size is influenced by the crew size.  

To go back to previous posts the ability of Fort George and Largs Bay to enhance our own naval abilities at a much reduced operating requirement allows us to continue to provide basic task force deployment as well as learn the skills of maritime logistic support to embarked forces at a minimal cost before investing in our own new builds.  As a nation with the size and worldly status as Canada, nations much smaller are investing in these multi purpose vessels built primarily to mercantile standards with military enhancements where necessary to accomplish a multitude of national taskings.

As noted by maddog, the responses to natural disasters alone would justify the acquisition of either of these two vessels.  Our response to the Newfoundland hurricane would have been more effective with either vessel than with the available frigates we sent.  We are a maritime nation and response by sea either militarily or in a humanitarian mission is a vital capability that Canada lacks.

As Keven Leary says on Dragons Den, "Its all about the money all of the time".  What a better way to save money than to invest in vessels that have lower operating costs.  I know this may be a naive view but I am a realist.  

Hopefully our Defence Minister and senior naval staff have this already in the pipe and in April Fort George will become HMCS "Niobe" in commemoration of being the navys first "new" ship in its second century of service.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

fire fytr said:
			
		

> True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.
> 
> At the same age as the CPF fleet she could be phased out as the CPFs are as the new SHSC arrive.  This is a "gift" that is to good to be true.
> 
> It will likely come to pass that our navy like others will decrease in size over the course of the next few decades and we will be left with a smaller fleet needing only two AORs.  By the time this "new" fleet is in place we are looking at about 15 years or more.  Fort George would then be 30 plus years old and ready for paying off.



Just for the record the Navy follows the enviromental laws of the host country or Canada which ever is stricted and if that included single hulled vessels being prohibited in a port then thats what it means. The tanker boys have been talking about this for some time as they know if one of the AORs are deployed in the coming years they will not be going into any of the good ports because they are single hulled.

Edit: while I would like to see us get some AORs tomorrow, I would caution in getting second hand equip now. It might rob the JSS budget and reduce our numbers from 2+1 option to 1+1 option.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ExD is correct.  Both our tankers are single hulled, but double bottomed.  This was identified years ago as a future problem and would have an impact on her capabilities.   The areas in which these ships would be welcome due to this will narrow as time goes on.  New tankers will need to be double hulled.  I shudder to think of the mess if we were to rip a hole into one of the cargo tanks.  Not good for the planet or our reputation.   Ff, your suggestion while on one hand I would like to see it is not worth the headache that might come of it.  And if it screwed the acquisition of the new AOR(s) ( I'll refuse to use the JSS term...) that would be very counter productive we have waited too long already.


----------



## Stoker

fire fytr said:
			
		

> True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.



The Canadian Navy would never buy a single hulled tanker due to our commitment to the environment. I believe we are exempt on what we have now but cannot buy more.


----------



## willellis

I can say that we need to have the latest and greatest if we want to be a competitive navy. The army got the new ML upgrade as well as ILTIS replacements, and new combats, new weapons, new tanks, and new support systems ( rightfully so). The Air Force has received the Globemasters (thank god) and the new fighter promise. The government seems to invest in one element at a time and now it must get serious with the navy again. Everyone knows that the CF makes the best of the least. It sucks that the fleet is going through a CPF refit AGAIN ( I love the new kit from the FELIX program since my trade will be one of the primary ops of it) , instead of an investment towards a new platform.  We have been able to exploit the DDG and FFH's for so long, that now is the time to invest in our sea capabilities and ensure that we are able to take care of our own interests (polar and coastal) and those of our friends for a further 15 to 25 years with top of the line ships which can start to impose our will in the future. 

The main point that I am ranting on about is why we can Save $$ to put towards a new ship vs fixing up old ones. It may take a while , and we might have to be dealing with shite kit for longer than we wanted, but we have done really well with what we have for this long, whats another 5-10 years. 

DO IT RIGHT!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Another 5-10 years and you will have 280s that will rarely leave the wall like the AORs barely do these days. The longer you wait, the more replacements are put off because we "can"make do. Then another party gets elected and sees we are making do and decide to cancel and cut defence procurement projects because we can make do...see the problem?


----------



## willellis

I see what you are saying and agree somewhat, but we are nearly there right now. The algonqin is alongside with a bent prop shaft. And the other 280 are clinging to life. I just believe that we need to hurt for a little bit before we can feel good. As a member of the Navy, it is really tough to accept, but as long as the savings from cuts over the next few years will be applied to the navy in aprox  7.5, I'll be a better operator for it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The 280s have been hurting pretty much since they were TRUMPed...they should have been replaced then. As for the savings being applied back to the Navy, dream on it never happens.


----------



## OldSolduer

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Another 5-10 years and you will have 280s that will rarely leave the wall like the AORs barely do these days. The longer you wait, the more replacements are put off because we "can"make do. Then another party gets elected and sees we are making do and decide to cancel and cut defence procurement projects because we can make do...see the problem?



A vicious circle. Its so true.


----------

