Continental Defence Corvette

[SeaKingTacco]

I guess where I was attempting to go with this is:

When Obama was dropping Hellfire's all over Afghanistan/Pakistan, were the operators of those unmanned assets based in Afghanistan or back in the US?

If they were based in the US and the unmanned assets were based in Afghanistan, then why can't something similar occur on a ship? We are talking about 7-10yrs out from here at a min.

That is a strategic level asset. And they weren't trying to launch and recover them from a moving deck.

And the US possesses a satellite communication suite the rest of the world can only dream about.

So- no.

 

[RangerRay]

I thought I saw a story years ago about Canadian Predator pilots operating out of a seacan in Kandahar…suggested to me that UAV pilots had to be relatively nearby.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That is a strategic level asset. And they weren't trying to launch and recover them from a moving deck.

And the US possesses a satellite communication suite the rest of the world can only dream about.

So- no.

I could see issues getting a ship closed up; and bird launched for ASW threat based action stations as well, with the pilot XXXXkms away.

 

[dapaterson]

I thought I saw a story years ago about Canadian Predator pilots operating out of a seacan in Kandahar…suggested to me that UAV pilots had to be relatively nearby.

Depends on the aircraft, among a plethora of other issues.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Should we have Attack Helicopters... probably.

Does it have anything to do with embarked aviation... nope. AH is the wrong tool for the job, even armed recce. The days of flying around the ocean looking for ships visually are long gone. Maritime armed recce should be done with a light MH, such as a Lynx, or perferably a Wildcat.

I couldn't find a picture, but VU-32 used to operate CH-135 Twin Hueys from ashore for fleet general support. If we could afford a split fleet (and granted, we may have to if DND wants to embark on the AOPS) then maybe bring that back with a Canadian built UH-1Y. Although I'd perfer a Wildcat, it's a pretty big ask.

If we were to switch to the SH-60, I think a split fleet of Romeos and Sierras with increased numbers makes a lot of sense.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think the CDC without manned embarked aviation is short sighted. This alone, in my mind, should be enough to split fleet and have a smaller helicopter.

I will admit my bias, as I spend my time researching how and why the decisions that led to the Sea King on the St Laurants were made.However, we did operate a 10 ton Sea King from a 2,250 ton DDH for a long time, quite effectively it turns out.

Certainly one fear that cannot be overstated is that some dimwit in Ottawa is certain to try and push the NH90 onto the RCAF/ RCN to fill any medium helicopter gap created by CDC and AOPS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes I hear they are going cheap...

 

[Maxman1]

Yes I hear they are going cheap...

 

[RangerRay]

Depends on the aircraft, among a plethora of other issues.

I thought they were Predators or similar, but I could be wrong

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I thought I saw a story years ago about Canadian Predator pilots operating out of a seacan in Kandahar…suggested to me that UAV pilots had to be relatively nearby.

We have never owned Predators.

 

[dapaterson]

We have never owned Predators.

Predator, kamikaze lawnmower, pretty much the same.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Predator, kamikaze lawnmower, pretty much the same.

Ahem…kamikaze ATM…thank-you very much!

 

[Prairie canuck]

I think including a helicopter on the CDC is something that needs to be carefully considered, as the current state of RCAF naval aviation is very lacking. I don't think it makes sense at all to build CDC out to fit a Cyclone sized helicopter, given how much space and weight would be taken up by the required flight deck and hanger footprint on such a small vessel design. I also question including a hanger to fit a "smaller helicopter" without a proper plan going forward to procure said aircraft, as aviation facilities to fit them aboard come with a non-insignificant cost for such a vessel.

Only repeat this in a whisper and only outside of Ottawa, there is a basic ASW version of the 412, Bell 412EPI ASW. 412 ASW

 

[Underway]

So I was thinking about the CDC and whether or not it needs a helicopter option. A good ASW ship needs a helo to find a prosecute a target. And then I'm realizing that the RCN isn't looking at the problem like this anymore.

The RCN is going what do we need. We need a ship that go to the ice edge and fight within friendly airspace. Collect data on what is going on underwater, surface and air, defend itself from threats equivalent to another ship of the same class and some submarines.

The RCN isn't interested in all singing and dancing anymore outside of the RCD, we want a system that does a thing and then another system that does another thing, and we're willing to build that stuff, see where it overlaps and where it had gaps and fill those gaps with something else.

So thinking this way... a helicopter is really for self defence from submarines. Helo's are for defence of a Task Group from submarines, in conjunction with other helicopters and multiple other assets. The full ASW team. CDC doesn't need to carry a helo because it will always be operating where an MPA can reach it, in conjunction with UUV's and maybe an RCD with a helo itself.

Of course maybe its just to save cost and the recognition that we won't have enough aircraft to even equip the CDC with a helo.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think the CDC needs some form of air asset. I just happen to think that asset will be uninhabited.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think the CDC needs some form of air asset. I just happen to think that asset will be uninhabited.

That seems to line up with the admiral's view of those vessels. Also, as per Underway's view above, the single most likely employment of CDC air asset will be ISR, not ASW. There are good "non-american" candidates for that out there, such as the Airbus Flexrotor, or even bigger, the VSR700.

 

[Baz]

I've attached an article for late 1963 on the General Purpose Frigate. It was for what followed the St Laurant and Restigouche classes, for an improved version that would carry an air defence system, be larger, and only have room for a smaller helo. It was originally annoucned in the House in 1963, and then cancelled in 1964. The reason it was cancelled was funding wasn't there (go back in time and ask the RCN how they viewed the Arrow in the late '50s). It seems to be another rehash of what the RCN originally wanted for the MacKenzies, and didn't actually get until the 280s.

What is my point?

The late '50s and early '60s were in some ways like today. The threat was changing (the new threat the RCN needed to face was the SSN, now the threat is return to near peer in a completely new way) and the technology was changing (it was uncertain whether the ASW helicopter on escorts was feasible, and now the role of unmanned is being fleshed out). One difference was the budgets were shrinking then and expanding now, but their expereince level was large, whereas now it is much smaller and struggling to grow.

The lesson I take from this is it is hard to predict the future, and much harder when you don't have the experience and excercise / trials time to game it (yes, I know we have simulations...) I don't know if manned helicopters need to be part of the mix (the very question they were answering in 1963), but I remain convinced it is shortsighted to assume they don't. It seems to me at least a flight deck is a risk mitigation scheme (the 1963 frigate proposal has a larger flight deck and a smaller elevator down to a hangar).

A couple of notes:

• The RCN in 1963 didn't assume support from the RCAF; in this case an MPA when you need it. I'm not sure the current RCN should either.
• Thier ability to go from the good idea club to staffed proposals, acquiring resources, conducting trials and exercises, and producing properly staffed position papers was impressive, and able to help them make decisions. Is our current ability to do that as good? They didn't have the burden of "because computers make it 'easy' to make staff work 'pretty,' we are going to make staff officers do so, even at the detriment of content" thinking.

Eddited: I wasn't able to upload the full pdf, but I did grab one image.

 

[GR66]

So I was thinking about the CDC and whether or not it needs a helicopter option. A good ASW ship needs a helo to find a prosecute a target. And then I'm realizing that the RCN isn't looking at the problem like this anymore.

The RCN is going what do we need. We need a ship that go to the ice edge and fight within friendly airspace. Collect data on what is going on underwater, surface and air, defend itself from threats equivalent to another ship of the same class and some submarines.

The RCN isn't interested in all singing and dancing anymore outside of the RCD, we want a system that does a thing and then another system that does another thing, and we're willing to build that stuff, see where it overlaps and where it had gaps and fill those gaps with something else.

So thinking this way... a helicopter is really for self defence from submarines. Helo's are for defence of a Task Group from submarines, in conjunction with other helicopters and multiple other assets. The full ASW team. CDC doesn't need to carry a helo because it will always be operating where an MPA can reach it, in conjunction with UUV's and maybe an RCD with a helo itself.

Of course maybe its just to save cost and the recognition that we won't have enough aircraft to even equip the CDC with a helo.

As the ice melts in the Arctic where the "ice edge" is becomes more and more distant. While we might be thinking of the Labrador and Beaufort Seas and the entrances to the NWP now, in a few years we may instead be looking at Ellesmere Island and the Arctic Ocean. That's awfully far for a guarantee of air support against a submarine.

When we're speaking of a ship for Continental defence I still think the major threats will be Grey Zone incursions into our Arctic territory and on the military end of the scale it will be submarines. I doubt that either Russia or China will risk their surface fleets approaching the North American coastline (and NORAD air cover). They have much more important (to them)

Submarines are another matter. They can threaten the mainland with missiles, attack our vessels transiting to conflict areas, disrupt our sea trade or just use our waters to transit to other operational areas.

If we're using our CDC's to confront Grey Zone incursions then we definitely might want a manned helicopter to inspect suspect vessels or even parties on shore. They can be used to meet up with Ranger patrols, conduct SAR, boardings (better than a RHIB in ice edge waters?), and if necessary use weapons.

In a conflict, if they detect a submarine it would be nice to be able to prosecute the target without having to wait for a P-8 to arrive (if available).

A Cyclone might be overkill but maybe something like the AW159 Wildcat. It's an existing design in use with key allies (the UK and SK) and can be equipped with both missiles and torpedoes.

$0.02

 

[Cloud Cover]

So I was thinking about the CDC and whether or not it needs a helicopter option. A good ASW ship needs a helo to find a prosecute a target. And then I'm realizing that the RCN isn't looking at the problem like this anymore.

The RCN is going what do we need. We need a ship that go to the ice edge and fight within friendly airspace. Collect data on what is going on underwater, surface and air, defend itself from threats equivalent to another ship of the same class and some submarines.

The RCN isn't interested in all singing and dancing anymore outside of the RCD, we want a system that does a thing and then another system that does another thing, and we're willing to build that stuff, see where it overlaps and where it had gaps and fill those gaps with something else.

So thinking this way... a helicopter is really for self defence from submarines. Helo's are for defence of a Task Group from submarines, in conjunction with other helicopters and multiple other assets. The full ASW team. CDC doesn't need to carry a helo because it will always be operating where an MPA can reach it, in conjunction with UUV's and maybe an RCD with a helo itself.

Of course maybe its just to save cost and the recognition that we won't have enough aircraft to even equip the CDC with a helo.

You’re right, which is why the first or second thing the government will do with such a ship is send it somewhere into a situation where most of its capabilities don’t fit the mission.
I’d say build the ship with a deck and kitted out hangar. It’s all borrowed money anyway.

 

[Furniture]

I think people arguing for a hangar and helo are seriously underestimating the additional costs in money, space, and personnel required to conduct flight ops from a ship.

If you add an air det(and it's required enablers), you're nearly doubling the crew size that the RCN is shooting for.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Don’t necessarily need the air det always embarked, but if they build a ship without a hangar and deck I suspect they will regret it in the long term.

Yes it’s a 100 million addition.