Author Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy  (Read 737404 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 159,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,021
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2425 on: December 08, 2018, 19:38:53 »
Nor should they really.  I don't really know the hierarchy in a hospital or an oil field, and I wouldn't be chided for not knowing.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,638
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2426 on: December 08, 2018, 20:50:43 »
Nor should they really.  I don't really know the hierarchy in a hospital or an oil field, and I wouldn't be chided for not knowing.
Its really pretty simple and our media would know if they'd just fricken ask.

Hospital
Hospital Administrators - Doctors - Nurses - cleaning staff

Oil Field
Tool push - roughneck - labourer

(I guess I'm just more curious about things than the average bear)

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,487
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2427 on: December 08, 2018, 22:29:06 »
I can live with Joe Public not knowing, though they really ought to have at least a basic idea. But the GoC? Inexcusable! After debt servicing, national defence is the single largest federal budget item. They are there to manage our money and so they should have a clue. The same way that, while I don't necessarily know about hospital management, I still expect my Provincial government to know all about it.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 13,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 485
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2428 on: December 09, 2018, 06:59:51 »
I can live with Joe Public not knowing, though they really ought to have at least a basic idea. But the GoC? Inexcusable! After debt servicing, national defence is the single largest federal budget item. They are there to manage our money and so they should have a clue. The same way that, while I don't necessarily know about hospital management, I still expect my Provincial government to know all about it.

I think you meant department spending not federal budget item.  In the 2916-17 $311 billion budget, $48.1 was elderly payments, $36 was the health transfer, and $25 defence, followed closely by $24.15 service the debt.

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2429 on: December 09, 2018, 10:25:53 »
Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.
- new, appropiate crane.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.

  ::)

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,349
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2430 on: December 09, 2018, 11:05:07 »
Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.
- new, appropiate crane.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.

  ::)

I'm pretty sure that those three requirements would result in an entirely new class of ship that would be pretty different to the current AOPS.  You would be resetting all the way back to the keel plate.   But that is just an informed surmise.   ;)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,487
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2431 on: December 09, 2018, 11:12:57 »
Quite right, Chris.

In fact, with the AOPS hull form, the increase in power that would be required to increase the speed by 3 to 4 knots would be off the scale. Such speed increase can only be achieved by redesigning the hull form.

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2432 on: December 09, 2018, 11:34:37 »
Back to the "poll"... I would go for two new ships based on the AOPS but fitted for/as  submarine rescue and ocean-going tugs.
I think they would not need big changes from original AOPS, main ones could be
- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.
- new, appropiate crane.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.

  ::)


All ships can tow, AOPS is not suitable as a ocean going tug due to its design, they will all be able to embark our SUBSAR and SUBSMASH payloads.

- dedicated new sonar and sensors suite- Sure I guess, what new sonar and sensor suite would you want?
- longer endurance, so the need for increased fuel and provisions capacity.- 6500NM range, more fuel capacity than a CPF, a fairly large provision storage capability and the ability to embark 6 20FT ISO containers. Remember these are designed to operate independently in the Arctic for up to 4 months without major support.
- new, appropiate crane.- Again they have a crane suitable to land vehicles, containers.
- maybe propellers or propulsion system should be also reviewed to slightly increase speed (by 3-5 knots I guess).- These ships are limited to the hull in regards to speed.
- perhaps they would not require to deal with 120 cm thick ice... maybe 70 cm would be fine.-Not sure what you mean, 120 is what you need in the Arctic and again that's what its designed to operate it. Are you talking about a AOPS light?
"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 Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2433 on: December 09, 2018, 11:54:55 »
This idea of a new flight of HALIFAX class is an interesting idea. The USN has multiple flights of BURKE class, each building the previous. The only thing I can think of is the current FFG design is pretty much maxed out for weight, and changes to above waterline might threaten the stability of the ship unless they lengthened it? But as an interim project, why not?

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2434 on: December 09, 2018, 12:05:18 »
Edit: I believe there may be abandoned plans in existence for such a ship sitting in archives somewhere: the Provincial Class AWD?  http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/futurddg/
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 12:10:38 by whiskey601 »

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 746
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2435 on: December 10, 2018, 01:05:40 »
Not a half bad looking ship...

15 of those with state of the art "whatever we need" might not be all that bad.  (More complicated than that, I know...)

But still.  A C2 capable AAW ship that would be decently simple to move forwards on.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2436 on: December 10, 2018, 07:19:16 »
Not a half bad looking ship...

15 of those with state of the art "whatever we need" might not be all that bad.  (More complicated than that, I know...)

But still.  A C2 capable AAW ship that would be decently simple to move forwards on.

Wondering about the radar stealthiness of this design, though. It’s my understanding that lots of right angles and hard edges make the vessel easier to find with radar, but I’m not an expert. I suppose you could clean that up, a little, with out much of a major change to the plans?

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2437 on: December 10, 2018, 08:45:32 »
Wondering about the radar stealthiness of this design, though. It’s my understanding that lots of right angles and hard edges make the vessel easier to find with radar, but I’m not an expert. I suppose you could clean that up, a little, with out much of a major change to the plans?

There's a reason why we are not building more Halifax Class or variants of the Class. Its outdated with no stealth characteristics.
"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 LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 104
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2438 on: December 10, 2018, 09:25:19 »
I'm sure any ship designer/engineering firm could clean some of the exterior up somehow...

What could you reasonably change to a CPF to make modern (again) enough through to the late 2020s? How can you re-configure a CPF for C2 and AAW that could be done as a moderate refit?

Even if the platform design dates back to the 80s.

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2439 on: December 10, 2018, 09:48:52 »
I'm sure any ship designer/engineering firm could clean some of the exterior up somehow...

What could you reasonably change to a CPF to make modern (again) enough through to the late 2020s? How can you re-configure a CPF for C2 and AAW that could be done as a moderate refit?

Even if the platform design dates back to the 80s.

In my opinion the somehow is to design an entirely new hull and ship. the design is over 30 years old. There are lots of advances in warships that the hull won't support.
"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 JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2440 on: December 10, 2018, 12:42:49 »
First of all, thanks for all your inputs, they make me learn from all. This was a “what if” game and I didn’t want to extend too much in my previous post. Supporting my idea, let me drop a few more comments…

One point is that I saw 17 knots somehow slow compared to the 2x4.5 MW motors. Then I was not sure if it was due to the hull shape or to the propellers (fixed or variable pitch? optimized for low speeds because of ice? – I also don’t know) . For an ocean going tug and submarine rescue ship, I considered 3-5 additional knots would help. I intentionally used conditional (“maybe propellers and prop. system should be also reviewed”) meaning that it should be studied both in terms of Navy needs and technical feasibility without introducing major changes/risks on the design. Sorry that I was too brief in my post.

Same way applies to the ice thickness. If it were as easy as just to use a thinner layer of steel in the hull (probably not), and if the Navy would not require these two ships for full Arctic environment, then they could be redesigned for 70 cm instead of 120 cm. Please remember that in the game we had no problem about money and had time enough untill mid 2020’s, when we would find the production gap, to make such redesign.

Crane (for SUBSAR) - I read sweeds using a 55 tons, A-shaped crane for their Sub-rescue ship, Korea uses an A-shaped crane as well. Might it happen that the 20 tons crane of the AOPs would not serve for the purpose? Is it really required an A-shape crane? and is the AOPS crane of such type?

Towing- of course any ship can tow. However, other navies (US, France, Russia, for instance) do operate oceanic tugs (UK relies on a Forward repair ship listed in the RFA), relieving other ships from such task.

Range and payloads – Good to know about the SUBSAR & SUBSMASH payloads! Then it wouldn’t be necessary too much of special design for the AOPS platform. On the other hand, since these 2 additional ships would not need to cover the Arctic, then it might be useful to redesign the hull for ocean-going (and benefit from a “lower” [1] polar class). Good also to know about the 4 months endurance of the AOPS (I had no data on that). But still 6500 nmi might be reviewed acc. to the needs and requirements of the RCN.  IMHO it might be a little bit short to properly cover the Pacific without refueling in the way to assist to the distressed vessel. Vancouver to Sidney distance is about 6.700 nmi straight [2].

While I had in mind to use as much as possible an existing platform (the AOPS) and cover a possible gap in the Navy’s fleet, from the comments received it becomes clear that such ships (2x submarine rescue & oceangoing tugs) should better be designed from a blank sheet.

[1] Lower as less restrictive, therefore, higher number.
[2] Yeah, the range depends on the cruise speed as well. I’m primarily pointing to the RCN to determine the targeted range for such SUBSAR & Tug duties, and secondly expressing that IMHO 6.500 nmi would not suffice.

Sorry for this loooong post. And thanks again for your comments.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2441 on: December 10, 2018, 22:06:06 »
In my opinion the somehow is to design an entirely new hull and ship. the design is over 30 years old. There are lots of advances in warships that the hull won't support.
This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted.
One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2442 on: December 11, 2018, 00:24:19 »
Considering how full our yards are at the moment with the exception of Davie who would even be able to build new flights of halifaxs/halifax sub-class?  Id bet only a foreign yard could build them any time soonish. Lets assume by magic it did happen the order would need to be significant to make it worth it to a yard, we would need massive recruiting and training efforts if we wanted a fleet of 20+ surface combatants capable of blue water operations
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2443 on: December 11, 2018, 02:51:53 »
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
They are AWD with C2 capabilities.

I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2444 on: December 11, 2018, 06:33:21 »
This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted.
One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.

The Burke class was built to evolve over time and is significantly larger than the CPF, the Halifax Class was not. Talking to several Nav Arc's that worked on the life extension told me that the design has reached its end.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 07:26:49 by Chief Engineer »
"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 Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2445 on: December 11, 2018, 07:06:08 »
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
If the yards are full?  https://www.marinelink.com/news/quebec-eyes-federal-shipbuilding-460538
Why not?  https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120223.msg1517415.html#msg1517415

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2446 on: December 11, 2018, 07:19:13 »
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
They are AWD with C2 capabilities.

I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.

I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.

Online Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 174
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2447 on: December 11, 2018, 07:53:58 »
I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.

Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....   

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2448 on: December 11, 2018, 08:48:11 »
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

Can’t unfortunately send anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at Davie. That’s one of the clauses in the NSS. Anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at ISI or VSY. So, in that case, either you spec out a new coastal vessel at apx the same size as an MCDV and somehow manage to get ISI and Davie to work together or you build something more capable but have to have it done where there’s already a it of work to get through. If the “gap” is only a couple of years, you’d never get those ships done before CSC starts cutting steel, IMHO.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 104
Re: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
« Reply #2449 on: December 11, 2018, 09:41:41 »
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?

Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.