Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 356490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 153
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2015, 23:29:25 »
Build 10 CSC all to the same design, do not build 3 AAW and 7 ASW, all 10 should be equally able in AAW and ASW.
They should be commissioned one per year over 10 years.
Order in pairs update design over build period.
Each ship should be able to operate two helicopters.
Build hulls overseas and fit out in Canada?
BTW is Irvings building yard covered, if not they do not deserve the build.
Going to have to be huge increase in defence budget to get more than 10 CSC.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 02:05:28 by ringo »

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,214
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2015, 23:50:43 »
I think at anything less than 12, we're going to compromise our ability to operate effectively year round.  12 allows 4 to be at sea at all times.

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 153
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #52 on: December 10, 2015, 02:13:42 »
I hope for more than 10 CSC as well but believe it will be 10 CSC and 5 AOPS, maybe if we get out of submarines or settle for interim AORs on permanent basis we can get a couple more CSC.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,111
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #53 on: December 10, 2015, 08:45:53 »
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2015, 08:54:50 »
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.

And credibility too.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,933
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2015, 10:14:39 »
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,111
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2015, 10:20:56 »
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.

I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,488
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2015, 10:37:54 »
I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.

I would still be concerned. There are still way too many "unstable" nations that could potentially be at times our enemies/opponent in our area of action and who own and operate diesel submarines.

I know they may not be up to Western levels of maintenance and training, but they often work for governments that are more casual than we are with their seaman's lives. And that is sufficient to create a threat. Remember that, at the rate they were cranking out boats, the German by 1942 were sailing U-boats with crew as green as those of the corvettes that were fighting them. They were going to sea with fresh recruits barely trained and a couple of merchant seaman officers turned naval captains and a few merchant seaman engineers per boat. They still made quite an impression.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,933
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2015, 11:15:17 »
Our first U-Boat kill was a green corvette captain vs a green u-boat captain, thankfully our guy did everything right. Due to the lack of subs, Canada struggled to get subs loaned to her in WWII to train her escorts in sub hunting.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2015, 12:21:07 »
I'd strongly agree that ASW should be a priority focus for us...with the new CSC, by maintaining a submarine capability and with MPAs.  I personally think it's important for our own sovereignty but also in support of the US as our primary ally.

I can't think of anything that would have a bigger political and military effect (both psychologically and in terms of changes to overall strategy) on the US than the loss of one of their aircraft carriers.  While there are multiple possible threats to a carrier I'd guess that a lucky diesel sub is the greatest one. 

I'm sure the US would be happy to see us bring as much and as varied capabilities to the table as we can, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong ASW contribution would be at the top of their wish list.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,933
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2015, 14:31:21 »
Since we are not going to have Mistral like ships, I agree ASW is a skillset we can focus on, but also I would throw in Mine hunting as a skillset that seems to be ignored and would suit us well. It could also be used to increase leverage Canadian companies into the underwater robotics and detection game which we have done well in already. Harbour and approaches mine hunting could be also tasked to Naval Reserve units near major harbours who can practice the skill sets right in their own backyard. 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,488
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #61 on: December 10, 2015, 14:58:29 »
Actually, Colin, what do you think the KINSTON's are?

Their MM designation means Mine warfare Multi-purpose.

They can sweep, but they also have the electronics to do route survey and, if you fit the type of remote control equipment you are talking about onboard, to mine hunt. In fact, they have tested all sorts of such equipment and, I am sure will continue to do so.

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

As fora "covert" limited mining operation by merchant ships in peace time, as I have discussed a long time ago in another post, it would also be extremely difficult and could have repercussions. First, Merchant ships are not designed to lay mines - second, a good deal of the crew, if not all of the crew, would have to be involved (and what are the chances of that) because laying mines at sea is a difficult undertaking that required cranes, booms or tracks of some sort and onboard handling equipments (mines are not light), which merchant ships don't usually carry, The highest likelihood then, is that it is done on government's order, and if so, it can be traced back to such government and laying mines in another's waters by any government is an act of war.
 

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #62 on: December 10, 2015, 15:27:47 »
I understand a smaller ship can be fitted with a containerized towed-array sonar to allow it to detect enemy submarines, but how difficult would it be to fit them with weapons to engage what they detect?  Can the Kingston-Class or AOPS (or something similar) be fairly easily fitted with something like an ASROC launcher if necessary or would they also need new control systems?  Would they instead rely on a helicopter or MPA to engage the targets they detect?

I'm guessing both of those types of air assets would be just as difficult to obtain quickly in a conflict as the new ship itself would.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,933
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #63 on: December 11, 2015, 10:31:25 »
I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,351
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #64 on: December 11, 2015, 17:41:20 »
....

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

.....

There is another type of minewarfare though, isn't there?  What you have described is "offensive" mining as I understand it.  In WW2 and WW1 weren't a lot of the sown mines actually sown by local forces for "defensive" purposes?



And closer to home - The Golden Gate minefield


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2015, 19:29:33 »
When we discuss ASW in the context of the RCN why is there not consideration given to the role a helicopter carrier, BHS, LHD, etc. can play in the ASW fight?  Outfitted with a complement of ASW aircraft (helicopters) these small flat tops have seemed to have a promient role in ASW operations with other navies both now and in the past. 
Such ships played a key piece in the hunter killer groups in the Battle of the Atlantic, and have seen similar use during the Cold War.  Even now we see the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces deploying ships of this nature (see the Hygua Class as an example).

It seems to be that when we discuss ASW ships in the context of the RCN's future we are strictly focused on surface warships such as the Halifax Class and discount any other other concept.

Perhaps this is just because this is the Surface Ship RFQ thread after all.  ;D
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #66 on: December 11, 2015, 20:01:16 »
I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.

The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 863
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #67 on: December 11, 2015, 21:00:59 »
The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.

Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #68 on: December 11, 2015, 21:10:17 »
Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???

The Class is in good shape and there is a long list of upgrades currently being implemented included a replacement for the 40MM. It interesting to note both the Kingston Class and AOPS concept of use lists the Kingston Class to continue to operate in the Arctic as a platform for chart work.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,351
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2015, 15:17:19 »
Here I go, sounding the Lurblaeseren for the Danes again.   [:D  If anyone is interested.

https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNEDay2015/Technical%20Paper%20Sessions/Sorensen_Paper.pdf

The author, of OMT, may be working on your ships as we speak.  Who knows.

Anyway, I find his comments about modularity, combat information systems, flexibility, commonality across classes and In Service Support verry interesting.



One common system for the CSC, AOPS, JSS and the MCDV with plug and play pieces.  And fast upgrades.

And I will put one more plug in for the Flex Deck Concept, particularly as described by the Dutch shipyard Damen and their Crossover series.

As someone interested in getting muddy boots and pongos onboard pristine, if bolshie, RCN vessels, obviously the Flexdeck/Crossover deck appeals to me.

But might it not also offer the RCN advantages as well?   I mean in addition to a glorified boat deck.

Would it be possible to increase the carrying capacity of the crossover crane to 50 tonnes so as to be able to lift the deckplates on the flexdeck and access the machinery spaces so you could yard out your own engines and drop them on the dockside and bring another engine on board?  Or even carry a spare if the situation warranted?

The crossover crane is already envisaged as having a capacity of up to 40 tonnes to be able to lift LCVPs according to the product sheet accessible from here.


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #70 on: January 02, 2016, 16:59:16 »
Some foreign (mostly NATO) frigates with good images (I've done Norwegian, Danish and Dutch):
http://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/







Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2016, 20:09:23 »
I don't believe I am going to say this but here goes. IAW CFDS, support to multi national TGs in foreign operations is but one portion. For the remainder, anything much beyond a PRE MLR Halifax class is a bit of overkill. My thoughts recently have been a small force for blue water ops and a shitload of OPVs in the 1000-2500 ton range with constabulary capabilities. I sit back now and have to ask, do we really need a large fleet of AB/Type 45/FREMM type vessels... I mean really? As much as I would love to see a huge surface combatant fleet harkening back to the 60s, do we REALLY need it?
I worked the CSC Project in Ottawa 2011-2012 and am proud of the work I did toward it but now that I am out, I really have to ask myself if this is the right move for us. Yes, we are a maritime nation but for the price of one CSC we could potentially build (and crew) 2-3 smaller vessels. Sending even a skeleton crew of 160 on a Halifax class on a FISHPAT/NANOOK/CARIBE is NOT the best use of our limited HR resources.
I want to see a strong Navy as much as anyone but maybe a step back from the table is in order. I realize some of you may think me out to lunch and that is fine.

Pat
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 429,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,089
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2016, 20:48:42 »
Pat:  I'm not in violent disagreement.  A corvette navy plus half a dozen or so major combatants might be an option; as I recall, the KINGSTON class spend more days at sea than the HALIFAX.  Much of this goes back to a need for a clearly enunciated defence policy for Canada - what do we want the RCN to do?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2016, 21:42:12 »
I have no objection to a Corvette navy once more as Pat is proposing.  Were we to downgrade, I would want to make sure they they're capable of something better than getting outrun by the Dartmouth Ferry or the like.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 161,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,737
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #74 on: January 03, 2016, 01:21:46 »
Agreed as well.  Also, the Russian experience in Syria has proven that corvette-sized ships can fling long range missiles. 

A fleet of corvettes based on the Norwegian Skjold-class would be a sight to see   :nod:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette

« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 01:27:04 by Dimsum »
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."