# New Ships for the Navy



## MAJOR_Baker (19 Apr 2004)

Seems the CDN government is going to spend money on some ships......


----------



## stukirkpatrick (19 Apr 2004)

Would that be the planned replacement supply ships, sir?  Apparently Martin also hinted at not allowing the GTS Katie situation to occur again, so maybe some transport ships/aircraft as well?

...or maybe one of the West Edmonton Mall subs sprung a leak and people were complaining


----------



## Gunnar (19 Apr 2004)

As far as I can tell, the Canadian government is going to spend money on PR, and promises, then try to win an election.  At which point, they will shelve anything new, and gradually bring in some of the great new equipment in dribs and drabs while the rest of the forces crumble around them.

You can always tell when a politician is lying to you....it‘s when his mouth moves.


----------



## DogOfWar (19 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## Yes Man (20 Apr 2004)

In the 11 years it is going to take for these ships to be ready, I can see 2 if not 3 changes in government.  Well I wish the navy luck.


----------



## Da_man (20 Apr 2004)

anyone knows what they will look like?


----------



## winchable (20 Apr 2004)

The site below is speculation as to what the ship will look like, and some and some tech stuff.
Now I can tell you it‘s not going to be for a long while, they‘re got the AOR Supply ship in drydock here in Halifax, doing a refit, so if they were going to be replacing them soon hopefully they wouldn‘t bother doing that right now.
Supply Ship


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2004)

Well 2011 is still a long time away and the Preserver has done a lot of sailing so she needs this refit if we want to have an AOR on this coast until they are replaced by JSS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2004)

I have also seen this design for the JSS:

 http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/3/web/123000-123999/123215_73_full.gif


----------



## 30 for 30 (20 Apr 2004)

The JSS project will go through, and it will be a valuble addition to the CF. Once these ships are operational, we will be able to send each one abroad with two companies of soldiers, LAVs, MGS, Gwagons etc, ready to go ashore. They will also operate as floating command centres on operations.


----------



## winchable (20 Apr 2004)

Ex-dragoon; i was having a look over the future supply ships (although I think they‘ve been referred to as more "Floating Logistic centers") and I noticed they‘ve got the azipod screws, they‘re on the CDV‘s the reservists use, but I‘ve never seen them on a larger ship. Neat little things.

I‘m not that familiar with the techs on larger ships, but do you think that‘ll make a big impact? negative positive etc.


----------



## sgt_mandal (20 Apr 2004)

If you don‘t understand my rationalle, I will understand:

Do these new vessles seem like a giant diamond ring on a homless mans hand?


----------



## winchable (20 Apr 2004)

Depends on whether the homeless man is the entire CF, or just the navy...

Either way picture as more of a pair of new underpants for the homeless guy (if he wears them) a good start, but he‘ll still need new pants and a shirt..maybe a haircut and shower too, (decide what the other clothes are for yourself)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2004)

RNW you forgot the primary role of the JSS totally and that is resupply of the navy. Carrying army equipment while an important mission is pure secondary.

Che I think it would be a good thing as it will make the JSS more maneuverable then other ships of its size.


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2004)

Ashore right now but I have sailed on HMCSs Terra Nova, Fredericton and Charlottetown in my career.


----------



## 30 for 30 (21 Apr 2004)

Of course resupply is the primary role, I‘m simply bringing attention to the new, important advantage that JSS will bring the CF, and, in particular, the Army.


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

but the army thinks so highly of the fishf...um...navy!      

Hey, unless the enemy comes right to our doorstep, those ships could prove quite useful for ferrying all our heavier equipment to wherever the ‘big one‘ is being fought.


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

...yes


----------



## winchable (21 Apr 2004)

Yarr matey


----------



## casing (21 Apr 2004)

Fishfriend?  Thought the common term was squidhead?  What other terms are there? I always get a laugh from these things.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

*wink*wink*cough*cough*


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

just curious but how creative are the navy names for us?  All in the name of fun


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## winchable (21 Apr 2004)

Puddle Hoppers


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

So 2.1 Bil. for all 3.
First one in 15.
So you yungins get in now you me be a Chief by on one of them 15.


----------



## winchable (21 Apr 2004)

...GO NAVY

All these subliminal messages we‘re secretly putting on the site now...
Anyone finding themselves shedding a tear upon hearing "heart of oak"?
Or perhaps you find yourself staring at the sea from the back of an ML longing for the day when you can play admiral, mwahaha


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2004)

Actually we expect the first one in 2011...the 2015 was a mistake in the National Post.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

I look out on Lake Superior through my house window and say...

"****, I‘m glad I‘m not out there"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2004)

Try the North Atlantic in Jan or Feb and its even worse.


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] Try the North Atlantic in Jan or Feb and its even worse. [/qb]


You Gray Funnel types   
Become a real Seaman,join the real Navy,the Merch.    

Yup the Western Ocean or the Pond as boys from the Rock call it is a b#$ch.
We were going over to Europe with lumber which was also loaded on deck all chained down 20‘above the main deck and we hit a gooder!!    and the cargo started to shift and we had to go out and tighten the turn buckles to stop the shifting what a thrill that was.

My scariest trip was from Japan to Brazil across the Indian Ocean with steel.We were a 40,000 tonner and the cargo of steel was only 10‘ high in the holds and we hit the outer edges of a cyclone!!We had to climb down into the hold to YUP tighten the turn buckles, as the ship‘s getting battered we get down there and it was spooky!!The dunnage supporting the cargo creaking and at the same time the motion of the ship and storm echoing in the hold.The only time I was ever scared at sea.
Yup "Dear Mrs Earl,he was squished by some steel!


----------



## Tyrnagog (21 Apr 2004)

Squished by steel... a very noble way to go..


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Tyrnagog:
> [qb] Squished by steel... a very noble way to go.. [/qb]


Yeh right,    I could have ended up in your Mums 75 Honda.


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] Actually we expect the first one in 2011...the 2015 was a mistake in the National Post. [/qb]


Getting back on topic,I hope they do a good job designing these ships.
I know what happens when the "Owners" go cheap.
It puts the lives of those who sail on Her in jeopardy.


----------



## winchable (22 Apr 2004)

I think they tend to do good jobs on the ships built here, as with any ship there were growing pains getting the CPF‘s operational but they turned out to be fine ships.

I‘d still like to see the navy expanded;
Carriers, more submarines (homegrown submarines, no more billion dollar lemons)
....yyyeah....that‘ll happen


----------



## stukirkpatrick (22 Apr 2004)

Just remember how long its taking to replace the Sea King...Canada will get an aircraft carrier the day everybody throws down their arms and declares world peace...then we come in and conquer them all, muahahahahahahha.


----------



## winchable (22 Apr 2004)

The sad thing is you‘ve seen right through my plan....back to the drawing board Che.

I long for the day when the world trembles at the sight of the Maple leaf.
Long live the eternal empire of Canada.

LOL


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Apr 2004)

Ummm start with things that the navy needs first before you play lets pretend. Air defence/command ships, JSS, AIP powered subs (better yet subs that worked), decent mine warfare units, an eventual replacement for the CPF etc etc etc....carriers are not even on the navy‘s radar screen. Its a non issue for us.


----------



## winchable (23 Apr 2004)

I was joking ex, about the Carriers anyway. The subs I agree On however,;
You don‘t think our CDV‘s can handle mine warfare?
I think, even historically, our CPFs are up to the challenge (although by then, who knows) our submarines (if we had many more) are war capable. The crews are up to the individual commander. If anything is lacking I would be worried about our 40 year old flagships.
Without wanting to cause any kind of contoversy, what is lacking? 
Seriosuly though, I‘m actually trying to learn?!


----------



## hugh19 (23 Apr 2004)

Che I have sailed on a quite a few different ships. I can safely say the MCDV‘s are cheaply built pieces of C*** They could be a good minesweeper once but thats about it. As for the Azmuthal thrusters. They are extremely noisey so a good place for a acoustic torpedo to home in on.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Apr 2004)

Sorry Che its just that when we hear someone mention "how we should get carriers" most professional sailors cringe as we know it is very unlikely to happen.
1) For a multi role ship the MCDVs are crap. They are far too slow to be a useful patrol vessel, have poor ship handling characteristics in rough seas, all their main armament(not to mention being old) is in exposed positions. They only have a couple of each type of modules (route survey, mine sweeping etc) and those are spread between Halifax, Quebec and Esquilmalt.
2) JSS is a major step in the right direction but what you have to realize is the JSS has sealift capability. Its not an amphib. Combining the two missions of sealift and resupply will save money but I think will only end in jurisidctional fights down the road.
3) I don‘t think locally produced submarines would have done us any better. The Aussies tried and are still having problems with the Collins. Personally I think we should have gotten French Scorpene or German U212 SSKs.
4) Air Defence- alot feel we don‘t need it as we are supposedly always under the umbrella of other nations medium and long range SAMs but there  were cases when Canadian units were the sole escorts of US amphibious assts in the Gulf. I think to lose that capability is only asking for trouble. Modifying CPFs to preform this role is not the answer either as we will have the same age problems with them in a few years as we do now with the 280s, better to make the investment now and build new. We also need to think of the littoral and netcentric warfare areas when we do get new ships witjout ignoring the traditional ASW, AAW and ASuW warfare areas.
5) Well the Danes have once again illustrated the need for purpose built patrol assets. An OPV/corvette with an ice strengthened hull would help us be able to show the flag up north and would be cheaper to operate then sending CPFs to do fisheries patrols. 
  Just a few thoughts.


----------



## winchable (23 Apr 2004)

Thanks Ex, The only reason I mentioned the carrier is because I‘m doing a little independent study on Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and he was a noted carrier and naval aviation proponent.

I knew that the MCDV‘s armament is something like 60 years old, I think that they do serve their primary purpose which is reservist training. I‘ve just been indoctrinated with the idea that the CDV‘s are multi-role mine sweeping etc. etc. so I assumed...

I‘ve seen the carrier-cringe at work the past few weeks, so I am beginning to understand the pains involved with that topic.

As for the rest of it, I‘ve got many years to learn about that so I‘ll decline to even enter that debate not knowing much about techs and such.


----------



## Brock (25 Apr 2004)

Ex-Dragoon good post.

For those of you who don‘t know, the JSS is not a new navy capital equipment project, but an old project renamed.  The former name of the project is the Afloat Logistics and Sealift Capability (ALSC) project.  It has been in the navy‘s plans since the early 1990s.  The JSS is going to be a big waste of taxpayers money.  The navy is going to get a "Griffon" can do a lot of things, but just barely.

The Royal Australian Navy--which is extremely similar to our‘s in purpose, budget, and size--recently rejected similar designs in favour of more dedicated ships.  Indeed, they just announced plans to build two new naval logistic support ships, 2 large and 1 medium amphibious transport ships.  The best part, the cost of all those ships will be about 500 million less than our total project for more ships and requiring almost the same number of crew.


----------



## DogOfWar (25 Apr 2004)

Say would you happen to have operational comparisons of our respective navy‘s?? Now do the Ausies have marines?? I find it interesting that most of the allies have marines and Canada does not. Does anyone know why that is? Are our infantry trained for amphibious asault?


----------



## Spr.Earl (25 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by sledge:
> [qb] Che I have sailed on a quite a few different ships. I can safely say the MCDV‘s are cheaply built pieces of C*** They could be a good minesweeper once but thats about it. As for the Azmuthal thrusters. They are extremely noisey so a good place for a acoustic torpedo to home in on. [/qb]


Sledge as to Azi Pods they are a lot better now most are driven by induction motors built in the pod and are very quite now,just thge hum of the motors and internal gearing with in the pod,a lot less noise than a conventional motor ship,but steam is still the quitest!   

As for Torpedeos all from what I have read of late have built sonar or by magnetic field detection now and acoustic are second choice for the poor people like our Navy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Apr 2004)

WetGrunt for someone that is suppose to be in the navy you do not know too much about it. The only marines we ever had were Royal Marines back in the days when the Royal Navy had ships stationed here.


----------



## hugh19 (25 Apr 2004)

Spr. EarL  The MCDV‘s have azimuthal thrusters With 5 bladed propellers, also none of the machinery is shrouded so all the noise goes straight out the hull.

 You should do more reading, sonar is acoustic,Its a type of homing active or passive is still acoustic torpedo. Plus the magnetic field detection is a type of detonator, and was in use by many navies BEFORE WW2. Thanks for coming out.


----------



## DogOfWar (25 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## Brock (26 Apr 2004)

Wet Grunt the Australian do not have marines, but the army trains for amphibious operations.  More specifically, the Australian Army does not train like the USMC.  For the OZ‘s amphibous operations basically deploying and being support from by ampibious transport ship.  The USMC actually trains to storm beaches and that sort of thing to keep it simple.  The Australian‘s like us do not have the money to spend on specialty marines that have the time and people to devote to offensive amphibious operations like the USMC.  With that said Canada could really use a similar capability to the Australians.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by sledge:
> [qb] Spr. EarL  The MCDV‘s have azimuthal thrusters With 5 bladed propellers, also none of the machinery is shrouded so all the noise goes straight out the hull.
> 
> You should do more reading, sonar is acoustic,Its a type of homing active or passive is still acoustic torpedo. Plus the magnetic field detection is a type of detonator, and was in use by many navies BEFORE WW2. Thanks for coming out. [/qb]


Your welcome.    
Re torpedoes,yes I stepped on my pee pee.      
But as to the Azi pods are they using diesel electric or is it a Z drive?
If it‘s Z drive which is the cheapest and the noisiest. 

As to shrouding it can can and will cause over heating etc. unless you have a good cooling system  which in our waters is no prob but will be a prob in warmer climes.

Right now Kame Wa and Rolls Royce are the World Leaders in Azi Pod design.

P.S. Sledge I work for the Ferries and the last week or so has been murder as we are having a two day CSI inspection for the ship.Been sitting atop of the boiler getting the safties right then had to thhe air reciever safties,emergency lighting etc,    

Thing‘s that should have happened last June when she came out of the Ship Yard.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Well my son it‘s not a "BURN" it‘s a "MISTAKE" on my part which I have owned up to.

That‘s what we are all about.


----------



## hugh19 (27 Apr 2004)

Spr. Earl  Just so ya know I was a EOOW in the reserves when I was a shad. So I do know a wee bit about engineering. (not snarky just informing you) They are indeed Z-drives powered by disel electric. On the frigates all the major machinery is in enclosers. But we didn‘t have heating problems in the gulf. Well as far as I am aware. I am ops weenie now.

 What ferry system you work for?


----------



## hugh19 (27 Apr 2004)

Never mind I just checked and you must be a BC ferry employee. I thought Most ferries were diesel.


----------



## Brock (27 Apr 2004)

Sledge/Spr. Earl are either of you even interested in discussing the issues surrounding the JSS project, such as why the Canadian Government in its "military wisdom" is going to design and develop an entirely new ship type for enormous amounts of money when otherm, less expensive, and more capable--on the whole--options exist. For example, the CF could buy four dedicated fleet support ships (AOR) for around $250 milion a piece for a grand total of $1 billion.  The navy would have $1.1 billion left to provide the army with sealift, amphibous capable transport ships, or whatever type of ship is needed.  The military could still buy two large ships for support to army operations and have a couple hundred million dollars left over to go somewhere else.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Apr 2004)

Interesting point Brock but where do you propose in finding the crews for these 6 ships?


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by sledge:
> [qb] Never mind I just checked and you must be a BC ferry employee. I thought Most ferries were diesel. [/qb]


All of the Ferries are now but we do have two diesel electric,the Cumberland and the Capilano.


Both have 3,9 cylinder Bergens,KG9‘s (Norskie)all the switch boards and assorted electronic monitoring equipment is Semans.
Great to work but you have to know your stuff if she black‘s out!


----------



## Brock (27 Apr 2004)

Ex-Dragoon.  The current Protecteur AOR class operate with a crew of about 275--excluding air detachment; 365 with--whereas modern AOR ships operate with only 125 give or take a few sailors.  Four AOR ships with a crew of 125 add up to 500, plus two transport ships at 125 add up to 750 sailors and officers versus 550 and don‘t forget we only very recently retired the HMCS Preserver which if you add it up equals 825 crew members for only 3 ships.  A pretty good deal all things considered more ships and therefore longer sustained op tempo, with lower personnel requirements.  What a deal.  The Dutch Navy has two ship designs that could suit the Canadian Navy‘s needs very well without breaking the budget.  

check out this link at  http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/schelde%20enforcer.htm  :look at the "Enforcer" amphibious transport ship designs that are low cost and two of the medium sized designs would perfectly suit army support and sealift needs.  The British, Dutch and Spanish navies operate 8 ships based on this design built in the last 10 years.

This link shows  http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html#  the Dutch Navy‘s "Amsterdam" fleet logistic support ship design, also very well suited to the Canadian Navy‘s needs.


----------



## hugh19 (27 Apr 2004)

brock The Preserver wasn‘t decommisioned the Provider was. Plus we can‘t man the ships we have now much less any more. The Huron was decommed so her crew could be sent to man the rst of the fleet.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Apr 2004)

If you are talking 6 ships you are talking of approx 800 sailors....500 we might be able to get from the 2 AORs we now have because we are all sailing shorthanded now.....thats still 300 short.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Apr 2004)

Some links about Azi Pods and their applications.
Some good reading.
The last link note the power plant‘s and what they  are driving.

"Voyager is 1,021 feet in length, 157.5 feet wide (at the bridge wings), with a 29 foot draft. She is 142,000 tons. Voyager carries 3,114 passengers (double occupancy), with a maximum capacity of 3,838 (all berths filled). Registered in Liberia, she is operated by officers of many nations, and served by an international crew numbering 1,176. Diesel engines supply 75,600 kilowatts of power for three electric propulsion motors located in azipods beneath the hull."

  http://evolution.skf.com/gb/article.asp?articleID=384  

  http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/botnica/  

  http://www.fortunecity.com/oasis/tropicana/431/Voyager.html


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Brock:
> [qb] Ex-Dragoon.  The current Protecteur AOR class operate with a crew of about 275--excluding air detachment; 365 with--whereas modern AOR ships operate with only 125 give or take a few sailors.  Four AOR ships with a crew of 125 add up to 500, plus two transport ships at 125 add up to 750 sailors and officers versus 550 and don‘t forget we only very recently retired the HMCS Preserver which if you add it up equals 825 crew members for only 3 ships.  A pretty good deal all things considered more ships and therefore longer sustained op tempo, with lower personnel requirements.  What a deal.  The Dutch Navy has two ship designs that could suit the Canadian Navy‘s needs very well without breaking the budget.
> 
> check out this link at   http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/schelde%20enforcer.htm   :look at the "Enforcer" amphibious transport ship designs that are low cost and two of the medium sized designs would perfectly suit army support and sealift needs.  The British, Dutch and Spanish navies operate 8 ships based on this design built in the last 10 years.
> ...


Brock the trouble with ship design is by the time everyone agrees with the drawing‘s can be up 5yrs then you start with Tank test‘s for stability of the hull design under light ship condition‘s loaded condition‘s under fare weather and foul weather sea state‘s and if they fail you go back to the drawing board.

The biggest cost in the long run is choice of power plant and auxiliary machineries because if you don‘t buy the best for the application you will end up paying more in the long run.Also standardisation is alss key factor as it can reduce costs.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

The Australian Defence Force does NOT have Marines, but we have specialist Infantry (SASR and Cdo) trained in water ops of whatever degree.

There is also Army attached to RAN vessels as required.

Cheers,

Wes


----------

