# "U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development"



## The Bread Guy

Mods - couldn't find this elsewhere, but feel free to merge if more's already here.

U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development
ANDREW CHUTER, Defensenews.com, 1 Feb 2011 14:02
Article link


> Britain is in talks with Canada about a possible joint program to develop a frigate for their respective navies, according to U.K. Defence Minister Gerald Howarth.
> 
> Responding to questions from parliamentarians Jan. 31, Howarth said the British government is in "close discussion with the Canadians" on a possible collaborative program to develop the Global Combat Ship, destined to replace Type 23 frigates in Royal Navy service by the start of the next decade.
> 
> The minister said Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Turkey have expressed interest in the warship program, to be called the Type 26 in Royal Navy service, when Defence Secretary Liam Fox recently visited the various countries ....


More on link.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Very Interesting.  I don't that we have done this World War 2...

Be interesting to see if that many countries can agree on even the basic design (hullform, propulsion) without the whole thing ending up looking like a camel...

Forget any two countries agreeing on sensors, weapons or information management systems.

Still, fiscal desparation makes strange bedfellows.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Very Interesting.  I don't that we have done this World War 2...
> 
> Be interesting to see if that many countries can agree on even the basic design (hullform, propulsion) without the whole thing ending up looking like a camel...
> 
> Forget any two countries agreeing on sensors, weapons or information management systems.
> 
> Still, fiscal desparation makes strange bedfellows.




Indeed, and a serious proposal - which this _might_ be - could force partner nations to remember, for once, that the "best" (which usually means "made here, by us") is the implacable enemy of the "good enough" (generally, "made there by them").


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Indeed, and a serious proposal - which this _might_ be - could force partner nations to remember, for once, that the "best" (which usually means "made here, by us") is the implacable enemy of the "good enough" (generally, "made there by them").


Sometimes the politically palitable solution to this is to design internationally and build locally.  It doesn't  usually make good sense for things that come of a production line, but it may be a good fit for ship building.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

One of my old XOs mentioned this early last year, now it sounds like its getting closer to a reality. Interesting


----------



## Halifax Tar

Would this be a replacement for the CPFs ? As they are the only frigates we have in service.


----------



## NavyShooter

This sounds like something I heard about a while back...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFR-90

That's sort of it I think....

NS


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Would this be a replacement for the CPFs ? As they are the only frigates we have in service.


I understand the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) will replace both destroyers & Frigates with one single class of ship.


----------



## NavyShooter

Aye, 

And if we share a common hull design amongst at least us and the UK, it would probably drop the costs.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Aye,
> 
> And if we share a common hull design amongst at least us and the UK, it would probably drop the costs.
> 
> NS



Then would we not have to compete with British Shipyards if we go ahead with them on this?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Maybe...maybe not.

The article lacks detail, but suppose we are talking a design consortium here- Once the design is set, you build it where you want.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Can someone remind us, please, of how the Australia/NZ frigate project worked?


----------



## MarkOttawa

And why cannot our government inform us about these things?  Even if only in general terms?

By the way if you think any Canadian government will spend $41 billion or so on Canadian Surface Combatants--well I have my doubts:
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/FutureFleetMack



> ...
> _Canadian Surface Combatant_
> The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With acquisition costs of about $26 billion and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans...



Given likely defence expenditures over the coming years I wonder why there should be a Canadian "military [sic] presence on the world’s oceans."  As opposed to waters of direct Canadian interest.  At some point some Canadian government is going to have to engage in a serious defence review--capabilities to conduct *specified* types of missions necessary vs. money available--as the British have just done, whatever one may think of their conclusions.  And each of our services should think seriously about what the CF as a whole may best be able to do under budget constraints and how they may best be able *together* to provide governments with the most effective military capability to do realistic things within budgetary realities.

So that any government has the most flexible and capable CF to use to achieve serious Canadian security and foreign policy purposes rather than just domestic political ones (the shipbuilding strategy and F-35-related jobs for examples).  Because if there is a really big war in which we become involved any Canadian contribution will be quite slight.  Without time as previously to build up a full force. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## larry Strong

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And why cannot our government inform us about these things?  Even if only in general terms?



I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................


----------



## SeaKingTacco

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can someone remind us, please, of how the Australia/NZ frigate project worked?



Quite well from what I can gather from both my Kiwi and Aussi friends.  Mind you, that was only two, fairly like-minded partners.  And even then,  each country's ships ended up quite differently armed (not that that is a drawback- it seemed to work for each country).

As for you Mark- which waters are of Canadian interest and which aren't?  Just everything within 200nm?  All of the Atlantic and Pacific and Arctic Oceans?  All Ocean waters of the world?

Right now, we have one of only about a dozen navies in the World capable of routinely operating anywhere (basically).  We are also a Maritime Nation that relies heavily on trade.  If pirates (or others) interupt the flow of goods around the Horn of Africa- is that Canada's problem, or not?  How about the Straits of Malacca?  How about the Med?  Or Carribean?  If not us- then who?

My point is: more than even fighters, a robust Navy is something Canada must have.  We trade by Sea a great deal.  Keeping sea lanes open everywhere is our business.  Not ours alone, too be sure, but it is our responsibility.

Having a coastal navy or an armed constabulary is not going to cut it- not if we don't want both our Maritime Trade policy and a good deal of our foreign affairs dictated to us.


----------



## HavokFour

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................



We have to get serious on the Arctic at some point...


----------



## larry Strong

HavokFour said:
			
		

> We have to get serious on the Arctic at some point...



That might be a way of selling it.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Quite well from what I can gather from both my Kiwi and Aussi friends.  Mind you, that was only two, fairly like-minded partners.  And even then,  each country's ships ended up quite differently armed (not that that is a drawback- it seemed to work for each country).



That was also with a design (MEKO) that was specifically made for situations where each building country can specify their own weapons/sensors. You couldn't really expect that with another design.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................



They have been talking about this for years but because it has been renamed, rethought, reroled etc the public generally does not notice that this office has been stood up for years working on this project.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Because if there is a really big war in which we become involved any Canadian contribution will be quite slight.  Without time as previously to build up a full force.



There is no strategic, tactical, political or other basis for such statement. Until and unless we can reasonably predict the nature, location, cause and "build-up to" the next war, and the parties involved,  we cannot state what our contribution will be - or ought to be - nor how much time we will have to get our forces ready for the fight.

I know you like to create controversies, Mark. And perhaps it is a good way to get people thinking differently and launch discussions. But if you honestly believe these statements of yours I quoted here, and then considering that Canada is extremely unlikely to be invaded by anyone (with the US the only likely candidate anyway), then what you are advocating is the replacement wholesale of the CF by a small territorial defence force, lightly armed (in military terms) to back up the police in their duties regarding control of illegal immigrants, drug runners, pollution control, etc. 

If that is your position you should advocate a reduction of defence budget in the order of $15b per year and downsizing the CF to about 10,000 total, mostly to train the "militia".

But in reality, there is the reverse point based on your statement: If Canadians want to make a reasonable contribution to an upcoming "really big war" and know there is no time to build up a force for it, then they should agree to invest heavily to build up the required force now, in peace time, before the "big one". 

Back on topic now: IMHO, after the bad experience the Brits have had with the European Horizon Frigates Program, I think they will do two things in their next cooperation program: (1) they will ensure that the responsibilities and timelines are spelled out very strictly, and (2) they will chose partner countries that are as like minded as possible on matters of defence. Both of these facts militate in favour of getting on board with them, as all the countries listed in the press release are the most likely allies and cooperators in any international operations and have a similar outlook on defence matters. 

Also, concerning the ANZAC frigates program: It is not necessarily a reference frame for the collaboration with the UK proposed here because New Zealand has no warship shipbuilding capability: All ANZAC's were built in Australia - the participating countries only specified what they wanted (or not) fitted on their version.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver: I certainly do not favour a constabulary militia.  My point is simply that I do not think Canadian governments (any stripe, this one is an example) will be willing to pay for three multi-purpose combat capable services that actually are that combat capable around the world.  I fear that if things go on as they are the services will each become slowly less combat capable as the funds simply are not there to keep them effectively multi-purpose.

Seeing as we are most unlikely to take on a serious unilateral combat mission, to my mind the logical thing to do is decide what we can best bring militarily to a coalition effort that can make the most effective contribution.  Given that in the great majority of cases Canadian governments choose the Army to be the main component of expeditionary deployments (including UN and other "peacekeeping", ineffectual as that often is) it seems to me that one possible future structuring of the CF would emphasize an expanded Army with the other services having support for it abroad as a prime operational purpose.

Nevertheless the Navy must still also be able to deal with waters of immediate interest to Canada--as must the Air Force as well as being able to patrol and defend our territory and surrounding airspace. 

If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well.  The UK, starting from a much larger defence base than us, in the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review
http://www.number10.gov.uk/topstorynews/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906
has made some very difficult choices to focus the services, and abandoned some capabilities so as to be able to afford and maintain others.  I believe Canada will eventually be forced to do something similar; I just hope we can do it intelligently.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well.


How do you think any of our services are trying to be "all-singing & all-dancing"?  Is this a convenient distortion of reality to fit your arguments, or are you actually oblivious to the great range of important and usefull capabilities that we do not hold?  You realise the Army is divesting of air defence, the Air Force is not asking for bombers, the Navy is not asking for cruisers and aircraft carriers, nobody is looking for attack helicopters, and ....

If it costs a penny, you seem to be against it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG:  



> How do you think any of our services are trying to be "all-singing & all-dancing"?



I was of course exaggerating for effect, note the "as possible" that you omitted.  



> If it costs a penny, you seem to be against it.



Not me, just most finance ministers and the Treasury Board.  You'll note this government has already broken its 2008 CFDS budget promises:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/index-eng.asp



> ...
> This stable and predictable funding provides the planning certainty required to continue rebuilding the Canadian Forces...



2010 budget:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/chap4a-eng.html



> ...
> *Restraining Growth in National Defence Spending*
> ...
> The Government remains committed to continuing to build the Canadian Forces into a first-class, modern military. However, as part of measures to restrain the growth in overall government spending and return to budget balance in the medium term, the Government will slow the rate of previously planned growth in the National Defence budget. Budget 2010 reduces growth in National Defence's budget by $525 million in 2012–13 and $1 billion annually beginning in 2013–14. Defence spending will continue to grow but more slowly than previously planned...



And that from the supposedly oh so military-friendly Conservatives, nonetheless the most CF-friendly government we'll have (even if only for political motives, not a real interest in, or concern for, strategy and defence).  _I would like some 2% of GDP going to defence_, rather than the around 1.2% now.  That amount could fund those three multi-purpose, combat capable services.  But I know that is dreaming and am just trying to be realistic within the funding levels that will be available.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Seeing as we are most unlikely to take on a serious unilateral combat mission, to my mind the logical thing to do is decide what we can best bring militarily to a coalition effort that can make the most effective contribution.



No.  What Canada needs to do is to look at what our nation's interests are, and what military assets we need in order to continue to serve those interests.



> Given that in the great majority of cases Canadian governments choose the Army to be the main component of expeditionary deployments (including UN and other "peacekeeping", ineffectual as that often is) it seems to me that one possible future structuring of the CF would emphasize an expanded Army with the other services having support for it abroad as a prime operational purpose.



Um.  No.  

The Army has been the force most in the *media highlight*, because the Army has had a high profile mission, for almost a decade, with numerous casualties.  

The Navy has not been idle, we've been somewhat busy ourselves...though without the media attention.  



> Nevertheless the Navy must still also be able to deal with waters of immediate interest to Canada--as must the Air Force as well as being able to patrol and defend our territory and surrounding airspace.



True.  Those waters include wherever the Canadian Government decides to send the fleet.  Immediate interest could include overwatch of the evacuation of tens of thousands of refugees from a bad situation in the middle east...or piracy, or oil supplies, or humanitarian missions...all while maintaining the capability for warfighting and national defence.  





> If each service tries to go on being as all-singing and all-dancing as possible each is likely to end up not performing all that well.  The UK, starting from a much larger defence base than us, in the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review
> http://www.number10.gov.uk/topstorynews/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906
> has made some very difficult choices to focus the services, and abandoned some capabilities so as to be able to afford and maintain others.  I believe Canada will eventually forced to do something similar; I just hope we can do it intelligently.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



All singing, all dancing isn't what we do now.  We have Multi-Role frigates, Destroyers, MCDV's that can do a myriad of roles from mine-sweeping to ROV ops.  

Our ships can take on a multitude of tasks....and succeed.  The versatility of a warship is something that cannot be cast aside, and if there's a way to make a newer one (our current generation have been in the water for 15-20 years!!!!) in a cheaper fashion, BY ALL MEANS.  PLEASE.  DO IT FASTER.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Our ships can take on a multitude of tasks....and succeed.  The versatility of a warship is something that cannot be cast aside, and if there's a way to make a newer one (our current generation have been in the water for 15-20 years!!!!) in a cheaper fashion, BY ALL MEANS.  PLEASE.  DO IT FASTER.
> 
> NS



Well said.


----------



## FoverF

Well, I don't want this to become a pile on, or any more de-railed, but I feel that this is a significant issue: 



> Canadian government is going to have to engage in a serious defence review--capabilities to conduct specified types of missions necessary vs. money available... to provide governments with the most effective military capability to do realistic things within budgetary realities.



I think this is a horrible, terrible, really really bad idea. There is really only one fore-gone conclusion that will come of it.

It would yield the smallest, cheapest, and least effective military possible, barely capable of performing *specific* tasks in a hypothetical war which will never happen.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The reviews Mark described are what most countries do. The US does it every four years with the QDR. Normally and logically it would be a good idea to do it here as well.

I think Mark is wrong in that he's trying to apply logic to an illogical situation. The reality is that Canadian governments of any stripe are just not willing to make those kind of tough choices, and then actually fund them. We saw that with the Martin government White Paper.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals are effectively in favour of unilateral disarmament, or at least thats where their policies will lead us. The only difference is in the exact timescale it will take.


----------



## MarkOttawa

drunknsubmrnr: 



> The reality is that Canadian governments of any stripe are just not willing to make those kind of tough choices, and then actually fund them.



Thank you.  A concise summary of much I have been trying to, er, elucidate.



> I think Mark is wrong in that he's trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.



One can but try, Sisyphusian:
http://camus-society.com/myth-of-sisyphus.html



> ...Here, Sisyphus endlessly rolls a rock up a hill, just to have it roll back to start anew...



On the contrary, I have never liked Jean-Paul Sartre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KmnZSnqIs

Worth the watch and fun.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pusser

This is not a new concept and Canada has been successfully involved in a similar project for years - the vertical launch sea sparrow missile system.


----------



## RC

This is pretty much an essential step in moving forward with the CSC program.  While Canada has strong design capability in most types of ships, it's been some quarter of a century since the design of the last batch of frigates.  Most people who worked on the design have either forgotten what they knew or retired.  The people who might be capable enough to do it likely won't, as committing to a program with that long a duration and intensity means sacrificing the rest of your business.  To force develop the competence from nothing will take a lot of time and money with uncertain results.  Surface combattants aren't exactly the easiest type of ship to design.

Thus, we need to rely on a principal design force that is foreign.  However, I don't believe the Canadian government will ever agree to simply buy a design without having their share of say in the development.  Aside from the fact that, as I understand it, there are some difficult questions about the Type 25, this seems like a pretty good solution.  Canada should furnish a small design team, mainly to benefit from a transfer of technology from the UK, and support the ships in construction and in service.

It will leave Canada with a capability as well as accelerate and reduce risk in the CSC design program.

I wonder if the government won't try to break up the funding to make the perceived cost more palatable to voters.  If you just say it straight out as $41bn dollars, it gives a certain front page panic aura, but if you split it into 4 groups with each announcement coming a few years apart it might drop back a few pages.  In other words, a common platform is a good idea, but a common price tag is not.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Major article in _Defense Industry Daily_:

Britain’s Future Frigates: Type 26 & 27 Global Combat Ships   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Britains-Future-Frigates-06268/



> ...
> Both British FSC variants will also be developed with an eye to export orders, in hopes of to spreading development costs over more vessels, getting more benefit from the manufacturing learning curve, reducing costs per ship thanks to volume orders, and sustaining the UK’s naval shipbuilding industry. So far, countries that have expressed some level of interest have included Australia, Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Turkey.
> 
> Talks do not a deal make, however, and Britain will have a formidable set of established competitors to contend with...
> 
> *Feb 6/11*: MercoPress
> http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/06/brazil-and-uk-ready-to-sign-huge-defence-contract-say-media-reports
> refers to Brazilian and British media reports that a GBP 2.9 billion deal (about 7.85 billion Reals, or $4.68 billion) may be about to buy 6 Offshore Patrol Vessels at GBP 60-80 million each, and *5-6 Type 26 at GB 300-400 million [$C640 M] each* [emphasis added]...
> 
> _“The articles mention that according to the agreement with BAE Systems and following on Brazilian policy of ‘technology transfer’ the first patrol and frigate units would be built in the UK and the rest in Brazilian yards…"_
> 
> Both Canada and Australia have plans for a “future frigate” competition in their 20-year defense procurement strategies, and BAE can expect strong competition on both fronts. Canada may be a better bet than Australia, where Spain’s Navantia has established a very strong foothold with its current Hobart Class destroyer and Canberra Class LHD programs. UK Hansard transcripts |
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110131/debtext/110131-0001.htm#1101318000512
> Defense News...
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5593035&c=SEA&s=TOP



So five ships for Brazil would cost some $3.2 billion.  We are planning 15 CSCs.  So for us the cost would be around $10 billion.  Meanwhile the acquisition costs for those CSCs is now put at $26 billion.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/FutureFleetMack
Big potential savings it would seem.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

I'll be very surprised if Britain wins the Brazil contract.

I'm slightly biased on the matter, but I think their chances are very poor, particularly if they mean to try and build the first one in Britain.  Brazil has made it quite clear on many occasions that that is not what they want.  They are competing with at least three other countries, at least one of whom is willing to built entirely in Brazil.

You'd have to look at what the Brazilians are asking for in detail to determine whether the frigates being offered are anywhere near the Canadian requirements.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't doesn't seem too enthusiastic and insists on building in Canada which will push costs up considerably:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/britain-canada-talk-about-building-frigates-in-joint-program-uk-minister-115769384.html



> Canada and Britain have been holding quiet but lengthy discussions to develop replacement frigates for both of their navies.
> 
> The shipbuilding program is being proposed by British defence giant BAE Systems Inc., but has also been pitched to other countries including Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Turkey in what could be described as a watered-down naval version of the F-35 fighter jet.
> 
> Word of the talks emerged recently in debate before the British House of Commons.
> 
> Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence, Gerald Howarth, said he was delighted that a "close discussion with the Canadians" was underway over the so-called Global Combat Ship program.
> 
> A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay played down the talks.
> 
> Jay Paxton described them as discussions over "best practices, interoperability, costs and numerous other issues."
> 
> Canada's Defence Department is refurbishing its 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates, launched in the 1990s but expected to reach the end of their life around 2025...
> 
> The frigate replacement is a huge chunk of the estimated $35 billion the Conservative government has committed in its recent 20-year national shipbuilding strategy. That plan, which the federal government recently formalized in a request for proposals, would see two shipyards selected as prime contractors.
> 
> Paxton said that will not change.
> 
> "Every new ship that Canada builds for the Canadian navy will be built in Canada," he said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

With all due respect Mark, you have no basis whatsoever to conclude that building these ships in Canada, as opposed to Great-Britain, will push up the cost AT ALL, let alone considerably.


----------



## The Bread Guy

_- edited to add House of Commons exchange - _



> Talks between Canada and Britain about a joint program to develop a next-generation global frigate could deep-six Canada’s shipbuilding industry, says a marine workers union official.
> 
> "If they’re talking to a foreign government about generic frigates, how long before they sell out everything?" Jamie Vaslet, business agent for Local 1 of the Canadian Auto Workers/Marine Workers Federation, said in an interview Tuesday.
> 
> The local represents 1,200 workers at the Halifax Shipyard, which is doing a $549 million midlife refit of seven Halifax-class navy frigates ....


More from the _Halifax Chronicle-Herald_ here.

Also, this from Hansard, during yesterday's Question Period in the HoC:


> *Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP)*:  Mr. Speaker, shipbuilders on the west coast are nervous about talks with Britain to jointly discuss the building of Canadian naval ships. The government promised that these new vessels would be made in Canada, yet workers are worried that they may be sold out in these closed door negotiations.  Workers at the shipyards of Victoria, Esquimalt and Nanaimo are looking for answers. Will the Minister of Public Works come clean and recommit to an inclusive, fair and made-in-Canada shipbuilding strategy?
> 
> *Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC)*:  Mr. Speaker, I remember the day that we announced the national shipbuilding strategy. One of the member's colleagues from Halifax was there, and he said that it was a great day for Halifax.  I can tell her that our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. It is a historic commitment. Our strategy will create more than 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipbuilding industry.  At the end of the day, this is great news for shipbuilders across the country. Our ships for our navy and our coast guard will be built by Canadians.
> 
> *Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)*:  Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that we have to go the House of Commons in Britain to find out that Britain and Canada are having closed discussions regarding the possibility of jointly building naval ships.  If the government is so committed to the NSPS, why is it having discussions with Britain regarding the building of our Canadian vessels?  We would like to know what those discussions are about. We would also like the government to recommit once and for all to building the entire ship for the navy and the coast guard, lock, stock and barrel, from stem to stern, with everything in it, in Canada by Canadian workers in Canadian shipyards.
> 
> *Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC)*:  Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is fully committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. The member knows that this is an historic commitment to our shipyards across the country. It is going to create 75 million person hours of work for the Canadian shipyards from coast to coast to coast.  He knows full well, being from Halifax, that this is a very competitive process, but it is good news. At the end of the day our ships for the navy and coast guard will be built in Canada by Canadians.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More from CP:

Navy review of foreign ship designs gives builders the jitters
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/navy-review-of-foreign-ship-designs-gives-builders-the-jitters-116351604.html



> National Defence has been quietly urging the Canadian navy to explore offshore designs and solutions to its shipbuilding needs — causing jitters in a domestic industry struggling to survive.
> 
> Britain's parliamentary secretary for defence recently revealed that country was in discussions with Canada about participating in BAE Systems Inc.'s Global Combat Ship program, the Royal Navy's plan to replace its frigates.
> 
> The Harper government has refused to comment on the talks, other than to play them down as routine.
> 
> Defence sources say the navy also considered — but rejected — a British offer to sell Canada one of the Royal Navy's relatively new Bay-class transport ships, some of which will be sold or retired because of deep budget cuts.
> 
> The proposal was floated because the navy's supply-ship replacement program is in limbo, with no firm date established despite nearly a decade of planning, number-crunching and redesigns.
> 
> Naval planners were also told to look at French proposals and blueprints, despite extensive staff work put into Canadian warship requirements.
> 
> Buying designs offshore would be short-sighted, said Canada's shipbuilding association.
> 
> "I'm not sure there's any cost-saving in that at all. In fact, I would argue it would possibly be more expensive," warned the association's executive director Peter Cairns.
> 
> Government insiders describe the process the navy is going through, *at the direction of the deputy minister of defence* [emphasis added], as due diligence meant to justify an eventual submission to the Treasury Board.
> 
> And Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said in the House of Commons on Wednesday that the Conservatives remain committed to the National Shipbuilding Plan, announced with fanfare last June.
> 
> "At the end of the day, our ships for the navy and the coast guard will be built in Canada by Canadians," Ambrose said, in answer to a series of questions from the NDP.
> 
> The process, still two years away from full implementation, would see Ottawa develop a strategic relationship with two shipyards in the country — one to build large combat ships, the other to build smaller civilian vessels such as coast guard cutters [*wrong, that yard will also build the biggest vessel, the "non-combat" JSS*].
> 
> Cairns said buying offshore designs is risky because foreign countries lay out their ships based upon their own requirements...



The newest CCG vessels are in fact Dutch designed,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-980011.html#msg980011
and the latest iteration of the JSS will now be based on a foreign design:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-978257.html#msg978257

Note the gov't is saying nothing about the design of the CSC even after the Brits spilled some beans.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Last night on the CTV News with Steve Murphy, the Defence Minister stated that these were routine consultations with the UK and that there will be no ships built offshore and that Canadian Shipyards will be getting the work to built the CCG, JSS and next generation destroyers and frigates.


----------



## NavyShooter

The last warships designed and built down in Canada were the MCDV's.

The last major warships designed and built in Canada were the CPF's.

Does it not make sense to refer to the design process that our allies are using in their current production ships to at least validate our designs against modern construction techniques and combat requirements?

CPF's were designed in the 70-80's, and built using technology that's now 20 years old.

Getting involved with other nations that have more current implementation of Naval Architecture only makes sense.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not only that, but if we had kept our head in the sand 70 years ago we would not have had Corvettes, Lancasters and other designs that were built here in Canada and used successfully.  There is no reason that I can think of against perhaps a joint designed project built in our respective countries.  I looked at HMS Daring while she was visiting, the modern design, stealth features including the mast.  And I looked at what we were fabricating, an old fashioned lattice framed mast for our use.  It's time for some new thinking.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To add to jj's point, there was lot in common (more than met the eye) between the old steamers and the British Leander class. It did  not happen by accident: we shared info during the original design phase and it lead to a better end result for both countries.

Also, the American coast guard has now elected to buy and build the same Damen design we have selected for our coast guard's mid-shore patrol vessels, but with some local modifications. They did this because it was found to be faster than coming up with their own original design and were in a hurry to replace the old "Island" class with the new "Sentinels". They are all built at Bollinger though - so looking at other nation's design still lets us build local and design our own mods. If it makes getting off the mark to actually build the thing faster, what is wrong with that?


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for foreign designs (and some construction):

Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance



> The navy's first amphibious landing ship, and the largest ship it has ever had, was launched in Spain overnight.
> 
> The ship, named HMAS Canberra, is able to carry helicopters, tanks and other heavy equipment, with a length of 230m and a displacement of 27,500 tonnes.
> 
> The hull is going to be shipped to a shipyard in Victoria where the island structure and flight deck will be installed...



Honk!  Honk!  More:
http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide
> 
> The Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock are new amphibious assault ships being developed for the Royal Australian Navy. The Australian Government has approved a AU$3 billion project to build two LHDs, which will have air support, amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles. They are planned to replace in turn HMAS Tobruk and one of the RAN's two current Kanimbla class vessels...



Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?



Maybe easier for take off with full missions load.


----------



## Haletown

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As for foreign designs (and some construction):
> 
> Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance
> 
> Honk!  Honk!  More:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Maybe we should suggest, in the spirit of Commonwealth solidarity, that they consider renaming their nice new ship the HMAS Ricky's Big Honker?


Aussies have a very good sense of humor    ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Re: The ski jump ramp: If you look at the left most ship in the drawing, it looks like a winged drone just took off from her.

However, the main idea for the Australians is to be in a position to work with two specific allies: The Indians, who have jump jets, and the US Marines, who also have them. Besides, its easier to build it in now than to refit it in later if they acquire some jump jets of any sort.

In the spirit of commonwealth solidarity, what I would suggest, is that we acquire two of the same class also - to "inter-operate" with the Aussies. I am sure some of us Navy types would love an exchange posting down under.   .


----------



## CougarKing

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As for foreign designs (and some construction):
> 
> Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance
> 
> Honk!  Honk!  More:
> http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html
> 
> Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark,

Pics of the ship before the launching ceremony are also at this other thread (link).


----------



## MarkOttawa

S.M.A.: Thanks, good pix, good the Spanish-designed destroyers mentioned too.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can see a lot of cooperative work that can be done without cutting steel in another country. Selection and testing of hull designs, weapon system testing, building techniques, machinery selection and testing.


----------



## willellis

The fact that there are talks between the UK and CAN is only great news. Just because they are talking about a uniform design, does not mean that the ships are going to be built in the UK. We are very capable of building our own as the past has proven, and I highly doubt that any government in Canada could afford to go back on the promise that has been made to our shipbuilders. 

Combining the knowledge from a more modern navy and our own could provide us with many new ideas that could help cut cost in the R&D department. On a further note, just because they are the same base design, it does not mean that they have to have the same emitters and weapons. We can have a distinctly Canadian configuration even if the Brits and others use the same blue prints to build their hulls.


----------



## willellis

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe easier for take off with full missions load.



The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

willellis said:
			
		

> The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.



Well if it helps with burning less fuel on takeoff I would be inclined to disagree that it would definitely matter.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, the ski-jump makes a huge difference on take-off weight. The jump-jet with a short roll-off and ramp can carry almost 50% more ordonance. That is why all nations that operate jump jets have ramps on their ships, except the Americans, who only operate them in support of Marines from the large amphibs anyway and have a different variant of the Harrier.

One problem in peacetime though, is that even with the reduced fuel load, the Harriers are too heavy for vertical landing if they still carry the full ordonance load coming back - so if you loaded them up to the hilt for roll-off take-off, they have to ditch some ordonance before landing - expensive!

And Willelis, we know that the F-35 has a STOVL variant (way behind schedule and with major "theeting" problems), but the Australians are not down as having purchased any at this point and they do not operate Harriers. So that aspect of operation does not seem to interest them at this point.

One must also consider that it is possible the ski-jump on the CANBERRA is just there because it is a feature of the JUAN-CARLOS I that served as its base model and it was easier engineering not to modify it.


----------



## willellis

Fair enough. I assumed that since they are planning on buying F35s, that in conjunction with the new ship photos, the B variant would make sense.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It was a fair assumption on your part. Its just that Australia has made no "noise" in that direction. I suspect that when (if?) the F35B comes on line and some can be had at a reasonably low price (post US run, for instance), they are already secretly plannig on getting a few for the CANBERRA's. They just have kept it under tight wrap.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.



It does matter. in fact, it matters very significantly.

All aircraft have a maximum weight at which they can get off the ground. The trade off is usually between fuel and stores. More fuel (for range) means less weapons, more weapons ( for effect) means less fuel can be carried. SVTOL aircraft are particularly susceptible to this as an engine can only generate so much power to get an aircraft off the ground in the vertical. The "ski jump" is an effectice compromise to allow aircraft to take off in short distances at higher gross weights.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To specify CDN Aviator's answer even further: In the case of the Harriers, there is a difference in maximum take-off weight between the vertical mode an short take-off mode. The short take off maximum weight is about 50% greater than the vertical one. Also, the Harrier has a maximum vertical landing weight which is, in both cases lower than its maximum take off weight, thus the need to jettison something between take-off and landing IF you took off at full weight. When they do a vertical take-off, the lower fuel load is usually sufficient to permit a vertical landing, but in the short take-off mode, something more has to be gotten rid of: either because you fired it at someone or because you ditched it prior to landing. That is why the idea of ramp assisted short take-off with "trapped" landing (tail hook and wire) of STOVLs has been explored by some Navies lately, the Indian Navy foremost.

(CDN Aviator: How am I doing for sufficeint knowledge of STOVL ops to command a carrier?)


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To specify CDN Aviator's answer even further: In the case of the Harriers, there is a difference in maximum take-off weight between the vertical mode an short take-off mode. The short take off maximum weight is about 50% greater than the vertical one. Also, the Harrier has a maximum vertical landing weight which is, in both cases lower than its maximum take off weight, thus the need to jettison something between take-off and landing IF you took off at full weight. When they do a vertical take-off, the lower fuel load is usually sufficient to permit a vertical landing, but in the short take-off mode, something more has to be gotten rid of: either because you fired it at someone or because you ditched it prior to landing. That is why the idea of ramp assisted short take-off with "trapped" landing (tail hook and wire) of STOVLs has been explored by some Navies lately, the Indian Navy foremost.
> 
> (CDN Aviator: How am I doing for sufficeint knowledge of STOVL ops to command a carrier?)


*Hey, You have my vote!*...hmmm...are there any diesels on that thing...?


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> I assumed



http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/jsf.aspx



> Australia is expected to acquire the F-35A CTOL variant and achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2014.


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/jsf.aspx



Just out of curiosity, how would a carrier variant make sense on a non catapult deck on an amphibious assault ship?


Btw, thanks for the lesson on the STOVL platforms!


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, how would a carrier variant make sense on a non catapult deck on an amphibious assault ship?



It would not. Note that the RAAF is planing to equip with the "A" model and that it s not a conventional carrier model. It is a land-based fighter.


----------



## willellis

Little confused. You said it was the CTOL variant in you last quote. I did some browsing as well and found that it is indeed the A and not the C. Thanks.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Australia is expected to acquire the F-35A CTOL variant and achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2014.



 :rofl:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99306.0.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> Little confused. You said it was the CTOL variant in you last quote.



*C*onventional *T*ake-*O*ff and *L*anding

I even posted the link to the official RAAF page that explains this quite clearly. I dont know how "less confusing" i could have been.


----------



## willellis

Haha! No kidding. Carrier take off and landing is what I was thinking.  :facepalm:


----------



## Pusser

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> *.hmmm...are there any diesels on that thing...?
> *


*

I hope not.  They would just take up space and interfere with aircraft landing/taking off.  Equipment and people are much more effective and comfortable in the modern navy when they are IN the ship! ;D *


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Willellis: The airplanes that operate on "classic" carriers are refered to  as "CATOBAR": Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Assisted Recovery.

Pat: I am not aware of any aircrfat carrier currently in service that have diesel engines as mains. Large amphibious ships, however, are a different story. Most of them have diesel or diesel-electric main propulsion systems. The CANBERRA, like its JUAN-CARLOS I counterpart has two main diesel assisted by one gaz turbine for sprint that all produce the electricity needed for its electric pods motors.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Canadian Press:


> The Conservative government is slamming the door shut on a British proposal that the two countries work together in building new warships.
> 
> "Canada will not be pursuing collaboration with the United Kingdom on our new surface combatant fleet," Jay Paxton, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, said Sunday.
> 
> Paxton was reacting to comments made by London's top diplomat in Ottawa, who told The Canadian Press that Canada and Britain could make better use of scarce public dollars by collaborating on new warships.
> 
> British High Commissioner Andrew Pocock said that with the economic crisis exerting pressure on defence spending everywhere, it makes sense for Ottawa and London to be discussing ways to co-operate on replacing aging frigates in their respective navies.
> 
> "We live in a much more financially constrained world. Every government faces a challenge in making its defence and other spending go as far as possible," Pocock said in an interview ....


----------



## MarkOttawa

But note the gov't did not rule out cooperating with the Brits on design.

Mark
Ottawa


----------

