Topic: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Cloud Cover]

.... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?

[Chief Engineer]

.... but what of the above ships would take on the mine counter measures role? Can you do sensibly that from a corvette or an OPV? A specially constructed and treated hull is required, or at least was required before the Kingston class seemed to ditch that idea for better or for worse. I'm not aware of anything that changes the requirement for a special materials hull, even remote underwater equipment.  Of all the capabilities the RCN might be requested or forced to give up, I would think the ability to clear our harbours of mines might be one worth enhancing?

The Kingston Class operates Auv's now for mine warfare including the standard route survey and divers. Most of this takes place outside the mine danger zone.

[Swampbuggy]

As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.

10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.

[Chief Engineer]

10-15 years more of the MCDV is good news. But, is it realistic to expect another 20-25? Maybe if 6-8 were kept/refit as MCM only vessels, does it seem likely. If AOPS and some other OPV/corvette (6-8) were to take on the patrol portion of their current taskings, then possibly you keep the mine warfare and get your under 1000t ships.

Original design life for the Kingston Class was 25 yrs, I doubt if they will be using them for another 25 yrs but who knows. As for taking over their patrol duties, they don't patrol exclusively except for OP Caribbe or fisheries which we don't do anymore but as in all RCN vessels all the time they are at sea for whatever they are patrolling. MCM is a very small part of what they do.

[dapaterson]

Ideally, the RCN would have two dozen minor combatants, with a new one joining the fleet each year, and a dozen or so major combatants, with a new one joining the fleet every two years.  But that would require a dedicated, long term plan that would survive more that one CRCN and more than one government...

[Underway]

As some has already stated a replacement for the Kingston Class is not being looked at right now. I would say we could easily get another 10 to 15 years out of the class and they"re being modernized all the time. In fact I just spent the last month on one of them in the high Arctic and they are in pretty good shape. The problem is that the class is being asked to do two roles, one as a mine warfare type utility ship and that of a patrol ship. I can't see the RCN going with a fast patrol ship as a Kingston Class replacement. To replace the class we need two classes of ships not one.

That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.

[Chief Engineer]

That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.

Concept of ops has the Kingston's pretty much doing the same deployments as they do now. AOPS will also deploy to the same areas as well and if i'm a betting man lots of other areas as well. The only advantage the Kingston's have is that they are very economical to operate compared to AOPS or any other platform we currently have.

[Chris Pook]

That might be happening, if you consider the AOPS is supposed to do that patrol work.  Perhaps it frees the MCDV's up to be MCM and route surveyors again.  Especially when you think that there could be a few more AOPS built than originally thought give the Irving work gap issue.  So when their replacements are eventually looked at 15 years from now they could focus on MCM ships.

IIRC it was "originally thought" that the RCN would be taking delivery of 8 AOPS with the vessels operating in the EEZ year round and conducting 2 deployments of 4 months each in the Arctic during the Summer navigable season.  "Concept of Support for AOPS - January 2009 - Version 9.0"   

I don't have access to version 0.0 or 1.0.

[LoboCanada]

Read through chunks of this today. Interesting note on submarines as I know they were discussed here in length.

Fantastic read-through:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9031883/nddnrp06/nddnrp06-e.pdf

Rear-Admiral (Retired) Patrick Finn, DND’s Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), agreed.
He told the Committee that DND was, in fact, planning on keeping the Victoria class
submarines operational for “about 10 to 12 additional years” and was presently
investigating “to what extent [it] could prolong those submarines’ lifespans” to “2030, and
even beyond” and how it could “increase their current capacity” in the future. At the
moment, there are no replacement plans, he noted.373

[MilEME09]

The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.

[Czech_pivo]

The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.

Welcome to Canada.  How old were the Sea Kings that we are just in the process of retiring?  How old is the Louis St. Laurent ice breaker?  How old will it be when we finally retire it?  How old were the Iroquois destroyers when they finally gave up the ghost?  How old are the CF-18's once they are finally retired? The Aurora's? The list goes on and on.

Here in Canada, we run everything into the ground, nothing is retired (unless it really really breaks) until its over 40yrs old at a minimum. 

Saying this with tongue in cheek.... I'm surprised that we haven't tired to take the Lancaster Bomber from the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton and press it into service as a long range recon plane off the west coast.....

[Cloud Cover]

How old is the B52? How old is the Minuteman III?  The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972, the Eisenhower in 1975.  We are not alone in this space except that we cannot seem to get approved projects that have the support of government off the ground. That is the real problem.
Edit to say that as far as I can glean from these boards, it’s not easy to tell if our own procurement people or industry themselves are the cause of so many recent delays. When senior cabinet intervenes, like the Leo2, the C130J, C17, maybe even the 147F, things get done.

[Chief Engineer]

Welcome to Canada.  How old were the Sea Kings that we are just in the process of retiring?  How old is the Louis St. Laurent ice breaker?  How old will it be when we finally retire it?  How old were the Iroquois destroyers when they finally gave up the ghost?  How old are the CF-18's once they are finally retired? The Aurora's? The list goes on and on.

Here in Canada, we run everything into the ground, nothing is retired (unless it really really breaks) until its over 40yrs old at a minimum. 

Saying this with tongue in cheek.... I'm surprised that we haven't tired to take the Lancaster Bomber from the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton and press it into service as a long range recon plane off the west coast.....

Properly maintained and upgraded ships and air frames can last for many years. 

[Ping Monkey]

The oldest ship Chicoutimi was lainched in 1986, by 2030 she will be 44 years old. While I am no expert that seems like a long time for a submarine.

We'll be in good company.  The Taiwan Navy's SS-791 Hai Shih is presently 73 years old, and undergoing a life extension refit to keep her sailing until 2026!!   
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/taiwans-ancient-submarine-will-reach-astounding-80-years-19150

[Czech_pivo]

How old is the B52? How old is the Minuteman III?  The USS Nimitz was launched in 1972, the Eisenhower in 1975.  We are not alone in this space except that we cannot seem to get approved projects that have the support of government off the ground. That is the real problem.
Edit to say that as far as I can glean from these boards, it’s not easy to tell if our own procurement people or industry themselves are the cause of so many recent delays. When senior cabinet intervenes, like the Leo2, the C130J, C17, maybe even the 147F, things get done.

I completely agree that there are many other examples of ships/air frames in use by other countries navies/air forces around the world that are as old.  But these tend to be the outliers - not the norm.  Its entirely normal here in Canada to run our equipment well past the normal/expected 'due date'.  Within the major NATO players and the other 'developed nations' outside of NATO, I'm willing to place a gentlemen's bet that our ships/air frames are the oldest overall bar none.  Some will say that means we are getting our monies worth then - and there is some truth to that - but I'd say that is not the case. To me its an overall sign of total disrespect to our Armed Forces and the men and women in them.

How many of us drive 40yr old cars day to day to work?  How many of us would do so even if we spent the money/time/effort to properly maintain them?  I'm willing to bet none of us.  Those 40yr old cars are called 'classics' and are not driven daily to and from work, they don't have child seats in them, they are not stored outside in the elements.  They are pampered and treated with kid gloves.

[FSTO]

Read through chunks of this today. Interesting note on submarines as I know they were discussed here in length.

Fantastic read-through:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9031883/nddnrp06/nddnrp06-e.pdf

2030 is only 12 years away. Since it takes an average of 15 years to get a project from concept to FOC, I think we are already astern of station on a submarine replacement. I cannot fathom why we are not even thinking about replacing the Victoria's.

[Cloud Cover]

FSTO I agree with most of what you are saying but look how long our projects have been in the pipeline and are stalled. Heck, some threads about equipment such as support ships that have had political support since 2004 and other than Asterix, no support ship has been delivered.  I'm just saying that in some instances "we" as a country has far less to do with the problem than "we" as a defence industry and military organization (civilians and uniformed).

[LoboCanada]

Anyone else think the issues with outdated equipment stem from a mismanaged organisation? Could we not make defence procurement a new crown corporation? Run it like a business, replacing revenue with capability as the goal?

I think its also a matter of timing more than anything though. If projects started and finished at reasonable rates, then the procurement people could be shifted around better to get something delivered on time.

NSPS (or whatever its name is now) is doomed to recreate the boom and bust cycle in our shipbuilding industry. How active will the 3 main yards be through the 2020s compared to the 2030s? Building AOPS, AORs, CSCs at the same time through the 2020s, then what? Where is the industry expected to go from 2030 on? Gov't would've fulfilled the large gap it built 10 years ago (by 2029), have a navy and CCG (for the most part) with almost all new ships. Maybe start building subs, MCDV replacements by then? How much work will there be to split? How much work will other countries have them do?

Is it possible to fit a 6 sub contract for Davie? It looks like the CSC program has had a rocky go of it, how would you trust a new sub contract to be handled?

Also, what happens if one of the 3 big yards land a big contract with a friendly country? Do they knock a RCN ship off the line to fit them in? What is the capacity for the industry to get outside work?

[Uzlu]

Is it possible to fit a 6 sub contract for Davie?

No.  Only yards that build submarines would be able to build submarines.  For Davie to be able to build submarines, there would have to be a lot of money spent to set up a new yard just to build submarines.  Then Davie’s employees must be trained to build submarines—again, lots of money must be spent. 

Building submarines in Canada only makes sense if all the political parties agree on a continuous-build strategy—e.g., always order a new boat to be built every other year.  Because it makes no sense to spend all of this money only to mothball the yard and lay off all the workers after these six boats are built.

[Cloud Cover]

More or less that's the Australian plan.

[Colin P]

The subs should be bought offshore, we won't even be able to fantasize about selling any.

[MilEME09]

I was more referring to the pressure hulls and if they could hold up for 40 years. Im guessing maintaining subs is a different can of worms compared to surface vessels.

[Uzlu]

I was more referring to the pressure hulls and if they could hold up for 40 years.

They have been lightly used.

[Chris Pook]

They have been lightly used.

Do they rust faster at dock or at sea?

[Uzlu]

Do they rust faster at dock or at sea?

Not rust.  The number of dive-and-surface cycles that stresses the submarine’s hull.