# The Corvette - A Ship For The 21st Century Canadian Navy



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

> This paper examines the capabilities of modern corvettes, the functions and roles of navies, the post Cold-War security environment, and the renewed focus on littoral operations.  The heavy operational tempo under which the Canadian Navy has operated in recent years has highlighted the fact that it is difficult to sustain two tasks groups made up of up to four "large" warships.  In addition, it has been demonstrated that at least 24 warships are required to provide appropriate coverage in our area of responsibility; the Canadian Navy has 16 destroyers and frigates.  In order to address the shortfall in the number of platforms and the need to be able to sustain combat capable naval forces, this paper recommends that corvettes be reintroduced in the Canadian Navy's warship fleet mix.



http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc/csc28/mds/bedard.htm

Interesting paper - the author argues that, with the post-Cold War shift to brown-water littoral operations (and the attention to "Homeland Security" following 9/11) that the Corvette may fill in for the Canadian Navy.  Arguing for a small vessal between 1500-3000 t, the paper states that a modern Corvette may be sufficent for constabulary roles in Canada's coastline and supplementing larger warships in the expidetionary setting.  This may be even more relevent today with the discussion of amphibious capability, which will strain our Navy even more to provide sufficent Task Forces for deployment.  There seems to be a common agreement that 24 surface vessels are required to fulfill Canadian Naval requirements; we have 16, and a small and inexpensive (yet operationally capable) Corvette may be able to "top up" to the required minimum and help support the proposed amphibious role for our Forces.

Interesting idea.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

Good article. Every ship has its limitations. A general purpose frigate is a good example of that. A general purpose corvette would be even worse. The Germans obviously know that- thats why the K-130 is an anti-submarine corvette. You would think we would know that as well, but who can say anymore? A capable corvette would be useful, in fact it would be an outstanding ship for both the reserves and the regs. Problem is, for the amount of money they would likely cost they need the legs to go anywhere, not just coastal defence. Also,it appears that our primary ASW platform will be the Cyclone- I didn't see much in FELEX to improve ASW suites. [might be a separate program, or maybe nothing is required to be done].

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

I wonder if UAV (armed?) technology would be at the level to be effective on a small corvette?


----------



## Steel Badger (27 Oct 2005)

Perhaps a "deep sea capable" hull...crewed by some 35 pers capable of "hosting" Naval Helo's or UAVs

By that I mean having a landing platform aft with a supply of fuel and / or ammo so a DDH could "stage" her helo's thru the Corvette...

Permanent Armament would be some form of heavy main gun forward, perhaps in an auto-mount   ...certainly of 40mm plus....

A pair of HMG / light 20mm in the bridge wings......and a Phalanx / goal keeper system.

Ensure the hull has mounts for Harpoon etc for emplacement if the balloon goes up.....

And quarters + the RIB for a Naval Boarding team......


Would that not constitute an excellent addition to the fleet?


SB


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

Denmark: notice the lack of ASW listed - there must be torps or depth charges that aren't listed. 


Nils Juel class large corvettes

Displacement: 1,320 tons full load
Dimensions: 84 x 10.3 x 3.1 meters (275.5 x 33.5 x 10 feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts; 1 cruise diesel, 4,800 bhp, 20 knots;
     1 LM2500 high speed gas turbine, 26,600 shp, 30 knots
Crew: *90*
Radar: TRS-3D16 air search
Sonar: PMS-26
Fire Control: 2 Mk91 missile control, 1 9LV200 gun control
EW: Rascal
Armament: 8 Harpoon SSM, 6-cell VLS Sea Sparrow, 1 76 mm OTO DP, 4 20 mm
	These are compact but relatively well armed frigate/corvettes.
	Have recieved a new mid-life upgrade with new command system, VLS Sea
	Sparrow, new radar.


----------



## NavalGent (27 Oct 2005)

A lot of what Bedard says makes a lot of sense. Especially when he compares the ship stats side by side. The Israeli vessel that is included has capabilities just about on par with our CPFs (plus a bit more speed, and probably lacking a hangar), but with only a fraction of the crew required, and in a platform a fraction of the size. It's likely that upkeep and operational costs would also be a fraction of that of a CPF. 

One other thing that I thought stood out..."Canada does not have the resources of a supper power"
Aye, but we certainly are the world's greatest breakfast and lunch power ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

I don't think that Israeli ship could take the North Atlantic on a sustained basis, at least to the extent of potential Canadian requirements. Also, one of the largest contributors to the variable weight of a ship is fuel and ballast. Doesn't matter what we do, we have along way to go, so fuel storage and ballast weight is a huge consideration that likely does not form a big part of the equation for many [but not all] ship designs from other nations - especially large patrol boats or corvettes. IIRC the Irish have a beauty of a design, although it lacks a decent  weapons fit.


----------



## Monsoon (27 Oct 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I don't think that Israeli ship could take the North Atlantic on a sustained basis, at least to the extent of potential Canadian requirements. Also, one of the largest contributors to the variable weight of a ship is fuel and ballast. Doesn't matter what we do, we have along way to go, so fuel storage and ballast weight is a huge consideration that likely does not form a big part of the equation for many [but not all] ship designs from other nations - especially large patrol boats or corvettes. IIRC the Irish have a beauty of a design, although it lacks a decent  weapons fit.


That's exactly it - the ships are newer and benefit from a greater degree of automization, but they aren't meant for the range of missions and in-theatre sustainability that is expected of a Halifax Frigate.  I think the most telling stat is that it has a 3m draught - this isn't a ship suitable for blue-water operations outside of the Mediterrenean.

My one gripe about the Corvette paper, and those of its kind, is the ready off-hand dismissal of the Kingston class as a platform.  Rather than suggest a (much more reasonably-costed) upgrade of the Kingstons to assume a Corvette role, there seems to be an eagerness to cast them aside altogether.  They certainly aren't Corvettes as they are, but people forget that the original design called for the second batch of six ships to be built 10m longer (the "lost 10 meters" that was axed in the budget cuts) that would have given them a greater top speed (20-25 knots).  As it is, the ships have a more than sufficient range, though a support vessel with an astern-RAS position would make this more suitable for overseas operations, and the ships' accomodations are ample enough that up to 60 crew could be accomodated (the stats in the article are out-of-date - the ships can carry 42 crew; the 35 number is "core crew"). The other capabilities are simply a matter of upgrading weapons, sensors and damage control capabilities.  Obviously the crews wouid need different training and certainly additional regular force specialists and officers, thus changing their role entirely, but if you're looking to create a Corvette it seems to be a more sensible way to go.

Don't get me wrong - this will never happen.  The Kingstons have the unfortunate burden of being associated with Reservists and, thus, of being the fleet's retarded step-children.  But the ships are military platforms with a great deal of room for growth and should be recognized as such.


----------



## Mr_Bund (27 Oct 2005)

I find it interesting that the Danish navy is replacing it's Niels Juels class corvettes with a follow-on to the Absalon
class (smaller flex deck, greater weapons). As an aside, I recall reading an article in Jane's Defense Weekly on this ship that if it was stationed in the Great Belt and loaded with SM-3's, it could provide ballistic missile defense for the whole country.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> They certainly aren't Corvettes as they are, but people forget that the original design called for the second batch of six ships to be built 10m longer (the "lost 10 meters" that was axed in the budget cuts) that would have given them a greater top speed (20-25 knots).   As it is, the ships have a more than sufficient range, though a support vessel with an astern-RAS position would make this more suitable for overseas operations, and the ships' accomodations are ample enough that up to 60 crew could be accomodated (the stats in the article are out-of-date - the ships can carry 42 crew; the 35 number is "core crew").



Didn't know that. What was supposd to be fitted to the 10m?*

Cheers.

*edit: are you talking about the CSEV plan that was scrapped in 1993?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

I was under the impression that the MCDV's performance is garbage (technically speaking).  Is this true?


----------



## Monsoon (27 Oct 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *edit: are you talking about the CSEV plan that was scrapped in 1993?


Don't know anything about CSEV, but my understanding is that the second batch of Kingstons were intended to be 10m longer, with an addition between the house and the funnels, and that this made it at least into the design phase before being cut.  Also cut was the provision of a bow thruster (which is why there's an empty Bow Thruster Compartment that now serves as the world's largest beer and pop can recycling storage room) and the Degaussing equipment that's only now being fitted onto all ships.  Can't complain about the cuts, though - I'm surprised the program survived, to be honest.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the MCDV's performance is garbage (technically speaking).  Is this true?


Depends on what you're talking about.  The radars certainly aren't much to speak of and the 40mm deck gun is (literally) a museum piece, though apparently the project to replace it is underway.  The ships are slow, but not because of the engines - as it was designed specifically for minesweeping it was given a blunt stern that causes a great deal of drag on the ship.  The extra 10 meters would have greatly improved the hydrodynamic profile and made them much faster.  The ships tend to be relatively unstable (that is, uncomfortable but not dangerous) in rough seas, but that is the plague of any small ship - a stabilizing system could reduce most of that.  They aren't designed to "take a hit" from a missile and keep fighting, but no ship under 3000 tonnes can be expected to do that, and it certainly isn't something that can be reasonably demanded from a Corvette.

Other than that, the ships are very maneouvrable, have a surprisingly long operating range, have very powerful engines, are quite comfortable and have a modular design that could be exploited in all sorts of ways.  The article says they have a "limited" route survey and mine hunting capability, but the Kingstons have as much route survey ability as any ship in the world, and a modular Remote Mine Hunting System has already been trialed onboard.  This really goes to the root of my complaint about the article - many navy planners have no understanding of what the Kingstons are or what they can do. They all seem to know that the ships are limited, but they don't understand that the limitations are nothing a $20M refit couldn't address quite handily.  Compare that to $200M for a Corvette and it seems a reasonable alternative.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

Sorry- got the acronym wrong- heres an article that laments its demise:   http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol5/no4/PDF/CMJ-5-4-15_e.pdf

I think we are talking about the same ship.*

Cheers.


The little bath tub boat at the end of the article is not what I was talking about. Something tells me its what is being supplied.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Oct 2005)

Incidentally, I think that Coastal Patrol Aircraft was supposed to be some Bombardier contraption.


----------



## bLUE fOX (27 Oct 2005)

The little boat at the end of the article is supposed to be the new ORCA class trainer. it is going to replace the YAG 300's next summer.


----------



## daniel h. (28 Oct 2005)

Wouldn't it be ironic if Corvettes became more important some day, after all, isn't that what Canada was known for during World War II?


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Oct 2005)

Well, an improved platform from the MCDV's would be a good thing.  The "lost 10 meters" has crippled those boats as effective ships in offshore operations.  If you can't make 20+ knots, you can't chase down all the fishing boats out there.

A Corvette type platform able to do 25ish knots with the ability to do surface operations, minor warfare, and MIO stuff, that'd deal with most of the defficiencies we face now in ships....or at least, most of the tasking drains.

Having 5-6 ships with the ability to do the above stuff, and spell off a frigate so it could get a break and get into refit would be a damn fine thing....unfortunately, to get away with the desired smaller crew, and higher level of automation, you'd need more CSE Techs.  Good luck with that....there's a lot in the pipes, but not many left in the fleet.  You don't want to know how many Journeymen we sailed for DWUPS with.  It's scary.

Before we introduce new ships, we have to deal with the manpower problems first.

NS


----------



## Monsoon (28 Oct 2005)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Before we introduce new ships, we have to deal with the manpower problems first.


True dat - it's not that the navy can't recruit enough bodies, it's that we can't recruit enough of the bodies we need more of when we reduce crews.  It takes a hell of a long time to make an NET/NWT/MARE/etc, but for some reason when they retire and decide to transfer to the reserves, we force them to remuster to something like Bosn because the reserves "don't have" those trades.  Maybe if we didn't force those trades to remuster upon transfer, they could pursue their civilian priorities while taking the occasional four-month contract to spell off their exhausted reg-force counterparts or teach some new guys.  The new labour market should be forcing us to be more flexible about the terms of service for navy personnel, but it seems that the whole Total Force thing is seen as a passing fad by a great many regular force planners.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Oct 2005)

Couple with the fact that many of those techs move far inland when they leave the Navy. It's not really practical to get out east or west for regualr training cycles. Where I work we have dozens upon dozens of bright, *young** ex CF techs who would love to do the reserve thing - and I am thousands of KM's from the ocean.


* LOL- I mean less than 40 years old.


----------



## NavyShooter (29 Oct 2005)

Back to the issue of Corvettes....manning is certainly important, but appropriate ships are too.

That said, for coastal type operations, there is a much reduced need for a full sonar/ASW suite.  Mind you, even if there was a desperate need to have ASW kit, I just think back to the Gatineau, where we had the triple tubes on the quarterdeck, and the "coffins" for torp storage beside them on the uppers.  It didn't take a huge amount of space.  Fitting a 510 wouldn't be hugely difficult either, the fit's pretty standard, and with the VDS's not being used much, there's even a bunch of SET's kicking around to use.

I think though that having full Harpoon capability would be desireable for parts compatibility with the CPFs, living with something a bit smaller might be more reasonable.  

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Oct 2005)

So if the Corvette was to come to fruition, the focus would be primarily surface warfare? [limited as that may be?] 

Can we talk [in general terms] about how such a ship might integrate with the shore based long range radar? That is to say, how would one gain the most efficiency out of both systems in terms of basing, weapons fit, numbers of ships etc. 

Cheers.


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Oct 2005)

W601,

I look at it this way.  If we can get ships that are capable of doing MIO and surface operations (such as Fish Pats) we would free up the CPF's for other duties that require a multi-role ship.  Face it, having a CPF chasing down fishing boats works, but for the sake of the 2-4 DFO people onboard, it'd be better to have a smaller ship for it, unfortunately, due to their low speed, and small size, the 700's aren't well suited.

That said, you'll still need Link, you'll want AIS, and a decent surface/air search radar (in case you have to do air control).

Having a helo pad, but no integral helo might be an option (ie no hangar).

Integrating with shore radars is a damn fine idea, but you'll need a decent display system to handle the targets.  There is such a system in existance, but the integration isn't as good as it could be.  Having the ability to real-time update it from the sensors would be a good idea.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Oct 2005)

Why go for the added expense of a corvette when an OPV is what we are really after.


----------

